Trending Games | Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn | EverQuest | Pirate101 | Star Wars: The Old Republic

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,901,411 Users Online:0
Games:752  Posts:6,271,965
Behaviour Interactive | Official Site
MMOTPS | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Development  (est.rel 2015)  | Pub:Behaviour Interactive
Distribution:Download | Retail Price:Free | Pay Type:Hybrid | Monthly Fee:Free
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

5 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 » Search
86 posts found
  Spawn85

Novice Member

Joined: 9/01/13
Posts: 1

9/01/13 6:36:50 AM#61
Well my guess is the progression to a farseer or autarch would be the ultimate 
  quotheraving

Advanced Member

Joined: 8/22/10
Posts: 279

 
OP  9/01/13 10:16:32 AM#62
Originally posted by Spawn85
Well my guess is the progression to a farseer or autarch would be the ultimate 

I dunno. That leads to the problem of "too many chiefs and not enough indians" since in time everyone would be an Autarch or Farseer and there'd be no basic troops.

 

It's bad enough having Exarchs as a progression option, but at least you could imagine a possible explanation for why players may be similar to an Exarch, but not quite. Maybe really dedicated Aspect warriors that were nearly obsessed enough to be Exarchs without having made the final, fatal leap into fixation on that path?

 

But facing an army composed solely of army commanders - naaaah, that strains credibility too far. 

  BeerSamurai

Novice Member

Joined: 7/05/13
Posts: 69

9/01/13 1:09:42 PM#63
Maybe it's be like Natural Selection, only one player at a time is allowed to be the Commander.  In the Eldar case, the Autarch.

Dreah I'm yunk, wazzit matter to you?

  silent0siris

Apprentice Member

Joined: 6/25/13
Posts: 8

9/01/13 9:46:27 PM#64

As one of our dedicated eldar players, I'm loving the speculation here.  Great discussion about the challenges and options we have for implementing Eldar!

 

I was all set to magnetize my new Wraithknight this weekend when I realized I'd run out of arm magnets...

 

-Steven

Lead Level Designer

  Nonderyon

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/30/07
Posts: 171

9/02/13 6:48:45 PM#65
Originally posted by quotheraving

 

 Very sorry for late reply, dont check it -.-

So, here it is:

 Warp Spiders are just infantry, heavy infantry is not a division that exists in the TT,  you are probably getting confused with Dawn of War.

No, i actualy mean what armor they use and that is why the category(like in middle age, heavy cavalry use heavy armor or light infantry use nothing or leather armor and this means there role are different...etc.)

 

Again your average Warp Spiders do not have strong melee, infact their melee is roughly equal to swooping hawks.

yep ,i got mixed up with there exarch

 Hang on are you seriously claiming that GW are doing Swooping Hawks wrong?

I've played since 2nd Edition and Hawks have never acted as you describe here, they have always had to land as proven by the fact that they are subject to terrain tests, so you are in effect saying that they (GW the makers of the 40k universe) must have been getting the rules wrong for Hawks from the moment they were introduced to the warhammer 40k universe - I find it more likely that you are just getting carried away by a romantic reading of the fluff and the art. 

Aaaand thats right, but i tell you more, they just wrong with the howling banshees and Wraithknigth too(just tell me, why the wraithknight carry 4 weapons but only shot with two? like you have 2 hand but only able to use 1, just dumb), so  TT restricted by rules for play.

and that is why i sayd forget about TT rules and numbers and see what the lore say, and you don't need much of imagination to see what the swooping hawks or other units able to do when they going to part of this game.

for hawks case: are you realy going to land when you shot or throw granade? or instead "quick strike in air than go away" like  a fighterbomber... 

About "  I find it more likely that you are just getting carried away by a romantic reading of the fluff and the art. " thing.

Yes, you are right, i like w40k because of the lore, and novels... not because of TT, but carried away...i dont think so.

Anyway, here is the wiki info about this two combat role(warp spider and swooping hawk) and pritty much what you read in novels and well detailed:

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Swooping_Hawks

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Warp_Spiders

  BeerSamurai

Novice Member

Joined: 7/05/13
Posts: 69

9/02/13 8:40:05 PM#66

Yeah gonna have to agree.  Almost every 40k adaptation had to twist the tabletop rules or just up  and threw the rules out the window. 

When thinking about which unit will be used, it may be easier to see which has the most functionality lore-wise than tabletop wise.  That and maybe what is easier to code.

 

Dreah I'm yunk, wazzit matter to you?

  Kuinn

Elite Member

Joined: 1/10/11
Posts: 2064

9/02/13 8:55:51 PM#67
Originally posted by Dagda

 

"And for vehicles...eh you might want to stick with tanks from the Forgeworld or the War Walker, as Wraithlords and Wraithguards kinda need you to be...dead first."

As far as fluff goes you are right on the money, but Wraithlords, dreadnoughts and the like are so iconic within the 40k universe I can't see them being ignored. 

Perhaps there will be a system to keep bad players interested, they get stomped all the time but after certain amount of deaths they can spawn as a dreadnought and pwn some face for a change!

  Savij

Novice Member

Joined: 6/18/13
Posts: 341

9/03/13 1:57:09 AM#68
Originally posted by Kuinn
Originally posted by Dagda

 

"And for vehicles...eh you might want to stick with tanks from the Forgeworld or the War Walker, as Wraithlords and Wraithguards kinda need you to be...dead first."

As far as fluff goes you are right on the money, but Wraithlords, dreadnoughts and the like are so iconic within the 40k universe I can't see them being ignored. 

Perhaps there will be a system to keep bad players interested, they get stomped all the time but after certain amount of deaths they can spawn as a dreadnought and pwn some face for a change!

haha i hope that dieing all the time will not be promoted :D

i think the walkers will just be a class you can pick after death (with cooldowns and costs i think) and when you die you can pick what you like to (just not your walker cause he is on CD)

 

be always up to date about Eternal Crusade
WH40k:EC dev Tracker

Other EC Sites i'm in:
Dakkadakka Savij
Reddit EC Savij1337
EternalCrusader.com Savij

  quotheraving

Advanced Member

Joined: 8/22/10
Posts: 279

 
OP  9/03/13 2:54:41 AM#69
Originally posted by Nonderyon

 Very sorry for late reply, dont check it -.-

No worries

 

 Warp Spiders are just infantry, heavy infantry is not a division that exists in the TT,  you are probably getting confused with Dawn of War.

No, i actualy mean what armor they use and that is why the category(like in middle age, heavy cavalry use heavy armor or light infantry use nothing or leather armor and this means there role are different...etc.)

So are swooping Hawk Exarchs heavy infantry?

I only ask because they have the same armor rating as Warp Spiders which you class as 'heavy' infantry despite the fact that they still get the 'fleet' ability that truly heavy and cumbersome units like Wraithguard lose.

 

And since the squad has mixed armor how would you classify it overall?

 

armor rating I might add only has any meaning in the TT game, so what basis are you using to determine whether one unit or the other is heavy or light? Surely you are just assigning these qualities based purely on your personal assumptions about these units.

 

 

 Hang on are you seriously claiming that GW are doing Swooping Hawks wrong?

I've played since 2nd Edition and Hawks have never acted as you describe here, they have always had to land as proven by the fact that they are subject to terrain tests, so you are in effect saying that they (GW the makers of the 40k universe) must have been getting the rules wrong for Hawks from the moment they were introduced to the warhammer 40k universe - I find it more likely that you are just getting carried away by a romantic reading of the fluff and the art. 

Aaaand thats right, but i tell you more, they just wrong with the howling banshees and Wraithknigth too(just tell me, why the wraithknight carry 4 weapons but only shot with two? like you have 2 hand but only able to use 1, just dumb), so  TT restricted by rules for play.

and that is why i sayd forget about TT rules and numbers and see what the lore say, and you don't need much of imagination to see what the swooping hawks or other units able to do when they going to part of this game.

Wraithknights are a good example for why what you think should be the case may not actually be the case, and why your own inability to think of a reason to account for this doesn't mean that it is 'being done wrong'.

 

In the case of  Wraithknights they can only fire 2 weapons  ... You personally can't imagine why that should be a limitation and that therefore there has been a mistake.

However we could explain this game rule as either attempting to represent the challenges of independently targeting both arm weapons as well as both shoulder weapons and indicates that targeting more than two of these accurately is simply too much for the crew, but this explanation isn't really satisfying.   A much better explanation is that there are power management issues which prevent all the weapons from being used simultaneously.

 

That obviously isn't in the fluff, but then the fluff for this unit is being written to accommodate the unit, and this unit has been designed primarily for the TT game. If you want a real explanation for why it can mount 4 weapons but only fire 2 we need to look at it in terms of the TT.

When viewed in gameplay terms the shoulder weapons simply allow a close combat geared WK to have ranged weapons. The fact that they can equip more weapons doesn't mean that they should!  Nor does the fact that this option is allowed even if it can't be used a sign that the Wraithknight is being done wrong, merely that your expectations don't mesh with the reality of the TT game.

 

Furthermore regarding your assertions that Swooping Hawks are wrong based on how you read the fluff, is that the only possible explanation or as with the Wraithknight are there other explanations that also match with the TT rules?

 

For instance I could equally well state that the fluff about Swooping hawks being far faster than any other Eldar unit is based solely on imagining that they fly really fast after a skyleap while at high altitude, but cannot manage the same speed when close to the ground.

 

However my imagining this doesn't make it so, it's just my imagination until I can back this view up with evidence from the TT game - and guess what :P that appears to be the case since the fact that Swooping hawks can deep strike again after a skyleap would allow them to travel 'faster' than any other unit the Eldar can field.

Unfortunately this 'speed' isn't seen when they are on the tabletop. There may be several reasons for this, but to give one example they may not have a fine degree of control over their altitude when at speed due to diverting power from the suspensor element of their gravitic packs to provide the thrust and relying instead on the physical wings to provide lift, making it unsafe for them to operate at low altitude at their top speed due to the danger of crashing. 

 

Clearly we shouldn't compare units based on what we personally believe from the fluff alone without some sound evidence that they possess the qualities we are imagining them to have. 

 

So we get to my first point:

Imagination knows no limits.

The real world however is defined by limits and the game rules are there to represent this and to make play possible.

 

My second point is that the

40k fiction is not a reliable gauge of the relative abilities of Units.

 

Fluff is often written by people who are to all respects fanboys and often what they write bears little relation to the game, is massively OP, and has scant regard for logic, or established fluff written by others.

Hence if you go by the fluff then a marine could take on an entire army single handed and terminators could backflip. (actual examples).

  

I repeat - what the rules of the TT do (and any game for that matter) are to represent how the universe written about in the fluff plays out in practise, without these rules defining the limitations of units we would be forced to rely on a schizophrenic body of stories, each of which plays up one particular race or faction to such an extent that they appear godlike in power.

 

Basically whichever race is the favorite of the writer will trump all others, and since the Eldar are a 'dying' race they are frequently used as the punchbag for the other races to demonstrate that race's superiority, so (drawing from fluff and novels) you should expect the following:

 

  • A single psychic Tyranid creature could take out entire craftworld by eating the infinity circuit (apparently despite this circuit having psychic defenses capable of destroying a greater Daemon!)
  • A Falcon Grav Tank can be destroyed by children with sticks.
  • Avatars being mesmerised by glowy Laser blades long enough to be strangled!. (despite not breathing!)

 

Thank god for the game rules eh!

 

Of course there are a few (rare as rocking horse dung tho) occasions where the opposite applies and Eldar are portrayed as ludicrously OP, for example:

Maugan Ra, Eldar Phoenix Lord of the Dark Reapers was supposedly able to defend a planet from a splinter of Leviathan Tyranids, single-handedly, which included bisecting a Tyrannofex.

To put that into perspective, the Blood Angels had to call up all of their successor chapters to save their planet from the same fate. 

 

for hawks case: are you realy going to land when you shot or throw granade? or instead "quick strike in air than go away" like  a fighterbomber... 

Who said that they need to land to do either... I only said that they do land at the end of every jump, or at least fly so low  as to have to take dangerous terrain tests from a swamp so yeah feet on the ground lol.

Not to mention getting so low to the ground as to engage or be engaged by other troopers in hand to hand combat with no negative disadvantages to either side unlike with skimmers and fast moving vehicles.

This last point is very important since the fact that Swooping Hawks can be engaged in melee by foot troops (even if they can fly to run away from them afterwards) should indicate that they spend some of their time on the ground.

 

Again as with the Wraithknight you can't think of a reason for why this may be the case and so assume that the Hawks remain airbourne at all times. 

So do actual Hawks do that? Or do they land when they catch their prey?

 

Maybe you think that they should be fully aerial due to the wings and the concept art showing them flying (which is hardly surprising as the presence of wings makes that setting more - apt - artistically!), but there are plenty of pictures showing them on the ground or just taking off / landing. Basically I am saying that the clue is in the name SWOOPING Hawks. They swoop down, deal with stuff on land and then take off again!

 

Now you claim they act as a flyer because they have wings and some fluff describes how their wings confer a speed and agility of flight unsurpassed by the other races yada yada, but I say that the only way to see exactly what that means in practise is to look at how it is represented without all the praise and flowery words and that means looking at how they appear in the TT game.

 

About "  I find it more likely that you are just getting carried away by a romantic reading of the fluff and the art. " thing.

Yes, you are right, i like w40k because of the lore, and novels... not because of TT, but carried away...i dont think so.

As I have hopefully pointed out, it's impossible to compare things based on the fluff alone since the fluff often is written by people who are so enthusiastic about a particular race (or trying to sell you on that race's strengths) as to make a realistic comparison or grading of relative ability impossible.

 

Anyway, here is the wiki info about this two combat role(warp spider and swooping hawk) and pritty much what you read in novels and well detailed:

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Swooping_Hawks

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Warp_Spiders

Thank you, I obviously have no idea what these Aspects do, so those links will help immensely :P

  BeerSamurai

Novice Member

Joined: 7/05/13
Posts: 69

9/03/13 10:46:30 AM#70

As game rules set the limits on reality, they are set to match tabletop gaming.  Namely turn based.  In realtime, those rules need to be tweaked to match a faster system. 

 

Think about it. 

With current rules Flash Gitz are terrible sporting unreliable guns.  Yet they were the best unit in Dark Crusade, a game which GW now considers canon along with Blood Ravens.

With current rules, a Mekboy's kustom forcefield can cover an entire unit of boys if it only covers on boy from that squad.  They can be equipped with burnas too which can function as power weapons in the hands of orks.  Translated into eternal crusade that would make them ridiculously overpowered.

The rules are not perfect, and not the best representations of 'reality'.  If they were, I doubt there'd be a new edition that totally reworks them.  I really do not think looking at them from just the rules of a turn based strategy game will make a good transition to a realtime shooter.

Dreah I'm yunk, wazzit matter to you?

  Savij

Novice Member

Joined: 6/18/13
Posts: 341

9/03/13 12:09:07 PM#71

they should just make it like this

 

take the Tabeltop as mainsource > stretch the rules with some influence from the novels > if this isnt enough break the lore to make the game work > explain this in some mysterious new lore :D

be always up to date about Eternal Crusade
WH40k:EC dev Tracker

Other EC Sites i'm in:
Dakkadakka Savij
Reddit EC Savij1337
EternalCrusader.com Savij

  quotheraving

Advanced Member

Joined: 8/22/10
Posts: 279

 
OP  9/03/13 12:29:20 PM#72
Originally posted by BeerSamurai

As game rules set the limits on reality, they are set to match tabletop gaming.  Namely turn based.  In realtime, those rules need to be tweaked to match a faster system. 

 

Think about it. 

With current rules Flash Gitz are terrible sporting unreliable guns.  Yet they were the best unit in Dark Crusade, a game which GW now considers canon along with Blood Ravens.

With current rules, a Mekboy's kustom forcefield can cover an entire unit of boys if it only covers on boy from that squad.  They can be equipped with burnas too which can function as power weapons in the hands of orks.  Translated into eternal crusade that would make them ridiculously overpowered.

The rules are not perfect, and not the best representations of 'reality'.  If they were, I doubt there'd be a new edition that totally reworks them.  I really do not think looking at them from just the rules of a turn based strategy game will make a good transition to a realtime shooter.

Absolutely!

What works in a turn based a tabletop game doesn't easily convert over to a real time computer game, additionally the nature of it as an over the shoulder action game adds another set of considerations.

 

For instance, taking Swooping Hawks as an example (since I've just been talking about them), one couldn't easily transfer the Hawk's ability to skyleap since the ability to exit a battle completely, not to mention the altitude issue would be potentially gamebreaking, both in terms of mechanics and graphics.

Furthermore either the Hawks would only have a limited time in the air or be unable to fire or throw grenades while in flight as otherwise there would be an issue with them not being able to be attacked by melee troops despite being able to fire upon them.

 

Seemingly little things like that which are seldom issues in the TT game, along with other design constraints and gameplay considerations absolutely need to be taken into account - and I'm sure will be! 

  MumboJumbo

Hard Core Member

Joined: 7/18/10
Posts: 3204

Veni, Vidi, Converti

9/03/13 12:39:27 PM#73
Originally posted by quotheraving
Originally posted by BeerSamurai

As game rules set the limits on reality, they are set to match tabletop gaming.  Namely turn based.  In realtime, those rules need to be tweaked to match a faster system. 

 

Think about it. 

With current rules Flash Gitz are terrible sporting unreliable guns.  Yet they were the best unit in Dark Crusade, a game which GW now considers canon along with Blood Ravens.

With current rules, a Mekboy's kustom forcefield can cover an entire unit of boys if it only covers on boy from that squad.  They can be equipped with burnas too which can function as power weapons in the hands of orks.  Translated into eternal crusade that would make them ridiculously overpowered.

The rules are not perfect, and not the best representations of 'reality'.  If they were, I doubt there'd be a new edition that totally reworks them.  I really do not think looking at them from just the rules of a turn based strategy game will make a good transition to a realtime shooter.

Absolutely!

What works in a turn based a tabletop game doesn't easily convert over to a real time computer game, additionally the nature of it as an over the shoulder action game adds another set of considerations.

 

For instance, taking Swooping Hawks as an example (since I've just been talking about them), one couldn't easily transfer the Hawk's ability to skyleap since the ability to exit a battle completely, not to mention the altitude issue would be potentially gamebreaking, both in terms of mechanics and graphics.

Furthermore either the Hawks would only have a limited time in the air or be unable to fire or throw grenades while in flight as otherwise there would be an issue with them not being able to be attacked by melee troops despite being able to fire upon them.

 

Seemingly little things like that which are seldom issues in the TT game, along with other design constraints and gameplay considerations absolutely need to be taken into account - and I'm sure will be! 

It's good point how the implementation would work. It depends on inter-connected factors.

The way I'd do it:

1/ Jump Packs allow those troops the normal FPS bounce (eg TF2 or Global Agenda or Firefall etc) into the air high then leen towards a landing point.

2/ Swooping Hawks I'd give the full Kahuna and allow them to blast way up then glide and steer and inject speed bursts as they slowly "fly/glide" forwards descending traversing huge areas. This already works in FireFall.

Both are entirely possible and different roles. But depend on how the maps work, what sort of battle field objectives you want.

Imo you want squads scattering > meatball tactics ; though with some squads that are heavy and tight.

Grenades can be limited amount to carry and/or drop sooner allows longer flight time.

  Nonderyon

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/30/07
Posts: 171

9/03/13 2:06:54 PM#74
Originally posted by quotheraving

So are swooping Hawk Exarchs heavy infantry?

No, they are part the chain of command, they are not part of the unit generaly, but take over the unit (because they are the leaders of the shrine anyway)lead anywhere and any time when they see fit.

And why i classified them heavy and light infantry? well its easy to explain: heavy infantry can take the beating, while light is not, and no one charge in with light infantry(unless is part some kind of plan) to while heavy give farther support, that just made the light infantry massacred.

 

Clearly we couldn't compare units based on what we personally believe without some sound evidence that they possess the qualities we are imagining they have. 

But  i do that, because we all see what the units able and capable to do with prior strategy, yes TT have the numbers and lore give us the stuff they have... dont need add numbers to see who have better armor or what gun they use to give beating closer or long range -> we can make a strategy with it, in TT not different, but in this game the units lot more able to do unlike in TT, because we got the stuff whats in the lore and we decide how they use it.

Wraithknights are a good example for why what you think should be the case cannot be used when comparing what actually is the case.

 

In the case of  Wraithknights they can only fire 2 weapons on the move ... You personally can't imagine why that should be a limitation and so you imagine that there should be no problem for two crew members (one dead and one alive) who are sharing a single body to target all the weapons simultaneously while running across a battlefield.

Clearly this game rule is attempting to represent the challenges of independently targeting both arm weapons as well as both shoulder weapons while running and indicates that targeting more than two of these accurately is simply too much for the crew.

They can however fire all 4 when standing still. 

No, that just the rules of TT for all Monstrous unit, that doesnt explain why they cant link all there weapons on one target. 

 

My second point is that the

40k fiction is not a reliable gauge of the relative abilities of Units. 

And same goes for the numbers, they just represent the game rules and how they got balanced for the game.

Fluff is often written by people who are to all respects fanboys and often what they write bears little relation to the game, is massively OP, and has scant regard for logic, or established fluff written by others.

You dont have to check the novels to decide what is the official lore and what is not, when Games Workshop nod on it, than its going to part of the lore, thats it. some of it hated some of it liked.

but without GW support, they never going part of it.

  

I repeat - what the rules of the TT do (and any game for that matter) are to represent how the universe written about in the fluff plays out in practise,

nop, TT rules always in change, same goes with units and there abbilities (good example the Eldrich storm, first they can harm butterflys and ants in the flower garden, above that nothing, now is way better, its actualy harm units), so yes, they are try to represent the universe BUT they change how it fit in the game(according the rage fest and cry from people).

without these rules defining the limitations of units we would be forced to rely on a schizophrenic body of stories, each of which plays up one particular race or faction to such an extent that they appear godlike in power.

Yes, well true, but life not fair in the first place, so don't belive an ancient civilization like Nekrons or Eldar be in the same league with humans, but in TT, they are.

 Basically whichever race is the favorite of the writer will trump all others, and since the Eldar are a 'dying' race they are frequently used as the punchbag for the other races to demonstrate that race's superiority....  

Well true, i dont like all the novels, and some of it i realy hate (like where the nekrons stand with the marines side to beat tyranids). but i still say, when someone have a "stand ground" imagination and not "sky rocketed", can be describe what a unit able and not able to do with that equipment.

 my exact words were: Hawks have never acted as you describe here, they have always had to land as proven by the fact that they are subject to terrain tests.

 

Maybe you think that they should be fully aerial due to the wings and the concept art showing them flying (which is hardly surprising as the presence of wings makes that setting more - apt - artistically!), but there are plenty of pictures showing them on the ground or just taking off / landing. Basically I am saying that the clue is in the name SWOOPING Hawks. They swoop down, then take off again!

yep, yep, but i same goes for me, never said they never land, and i think yes, they made for aerial, altho not a long ranged ones (when they have the speed and fast manuverability and to glide far add this up and you can imagin what they can do without TT numbers)

Now you claim they act as a flyer because they have wings and some fluff describes how their wings confer a speed and agility of flight unsurpassed by the other races yada yada, but I say that the only way to see exactly what that means in practise is to look at how it is represented without all the praise and flowery words.

GW describe them what they have, not me, as how they implement a game where balance the main reason and for fun, as i sayd before, life is not fair, and dont compare a single jetpacked marine(what is realy jumping) and a swooping hawk (they glide). but as you sayd before in TT they are lame, but in lore they are awsome, and when this game just give the stuff they have, they going to be awsome .

 As I have hopefully pointed out, it's impossible to compare things based on the fluff alone since the fluff often is written by people who are so enthusiastic about a particular race (or trying to sell you on that race's strengths) as to make a realistic comparison or grading of relative ability impossible.

Well true, but same goes with TT data(those numbers just represent a balabnced game where every race is equal and nerfed because of it).

The final desition is on the DEV team how they implement stuff, so we can discuss this who is right on this or not,  i just guesting on this, but they are going to rebalance them for this game, not for TT and not how powerful they are in lore.

  Savij

Novice Member

Joined: 6/18/13
Posts: 341

9/03/13 2:45:12 PM#75
dat eldars like to write alot what no normal men can understand :D

be always up to date about Eternal Crusade
WH40k:EC dev Tracker

Other EC Sites i'm in:
Dakkadakka Savij
Reddit EC Savij1337
EternalCrusader.com Savij

  quotheraving

Advanced Member

Joined: 8/22/10
Posts: 279

 
OP  9/03/13 4:00:13 PM#76
Originally posted by Nonderyon
Originally posted by quotheraving

So are swooping Hawk Exarchs heavy infantry?

No, they are part the chain of command, they are not part of the unit generaly, but take over the unit (because they are the leaders of the shrine anyway)lead anywhere and any time when they see fit.

And why i classified them heavy and light infantry? well its easy to explain: heavy infantry can take the beating, while light is not, and no one charge in with light infantry(unless is part some kind of plan) to while heavy give farther support, that just made the light infantry massacred.

 

A classification you made based on?

that's right Armor.

 

"no one charge in with light infantry" Except for Banshees.

 

Clearly we couldn't compare units based on what we personally believe without some sound evidence that they possess the qualities we are imagining they have. 

But  i do that.

Which is why your comparisons are suspect.

 

Wraithknights are a good example for why what you think should be the case cannot be used when comparing what actually is the case.

 

In the case of  Wraithknights they can only fire 2 weapons on the move ... You personally can't imagine why that should be a limitation and so you imagine that there should be no problem for two crew members (one dead and one alive) who are sharing a single body to target all the weapons simultaneously while running across a battlefield.

Clearly this game rule is attempting to represent the challenges of independently targeting both arm weapons as well as both shoulder weapons while running and indicates that targeting more than two of these accurately is simply too much for the crew.

They can however fire all 4 when standing still. 

No, that just the rules of TT for all Monstrous unit, that doesnt explain why they cant link all there weapons on one target. 

You caught me mid edit (I tend to edit a lot being a bit obsessive lol) and as such my argument was a bit all over the place.

The following better represents my argument - give it a read:

 

 

"Wraithknights are a good example for why what you think should be the case may not actually be the case, and why your own inability to think of a reason to account for this doesn't mean that it is 'being done wrong'.

In the case of  Wraithknights they can only fire 2 weapons  ... You personally can't imagine why that should be a limitation and that therefore there has been a mistake.

However we could explain this game rule as either attempting to represent the challenges of independently targeting both arm weapons as well as both shoulder weapons and indicates that targeting more than two of these accurately is simply too much for the crew, but this explanation isn't really satisfying.   A much better explanation is that there are power management issues which prevent all the weapons from being used simultaneously.

That obviously isn't in the fluff, but then the fluff for this unit is being written to accommodate the unit, and this unit has been designed primarily for the TT game. If you want a real explanation for why it can mount 4 weapons but only fire 2 we need to look at it in terms of the TT.

When viewed in gameplay terms the shoulder weapons simply allow a close combat geared WK to have ranged weapons. The fact that they can equip more weapons doesn't mean that they should!  Nor does the fact that this option is allowed even if it can't be used a sign that the Wraithknight is being done wrong, merely that your expectations don't mesh with the reality of the TT game.

Furthermore regarding your assertions that Swooping Hawks are wrong based on how you read the fluff, is that the only possible explanation or as with the Wraithknight are there other explanations that also match with the TT rules?

For instance I could equally well argue that the fluff about Swooping hawks being far faster than any other Eldar unit is based solely on imagining that they speed up and fly really fast after a skyleap while at high altitude, but this raises the question "Why can't they manage the same speed when close to the ground?"

Obviously my imagining this doesn't make it so, it's just my imagination until I can back this view up with evidence from the TT game - and guess what :P that appears to be the case since the fact that Swooping hawks can deep strike again after a skyleap would allow them to travel 'faster' than any other unit the Eldar can field.

Anyway since this 'speed' isn't seen when they are at low altitude and represented on the tabletop by a figure it may be the case that when flying high and fast they don't have a fine degree of control over their altitude, maybe due to diverting power from the suspensor element of their gravitic packs to provide thrust. At this speed they may be relying more on the physical wings to provide lift, making it unsafe for them to operate at low altitude at their top speed due to the danger of crashing. "

 

So that explains why they move slower than spiders or jetbikes on the tabletop despite being described as super fast, so what about them acting like jump troops when on the battlefield?

 

Since Swooping Hawks get their names from creatures that hunt like Hawks how do actual Hawks hunt?

Do they land when they catch their prey?

 

Maybe their landing frequently is part of their battle philosophy, a little like Scorpions imitating the stealth of the animal or Warp Spiders mimicking the way the warp spiders that guard the infinity circuit appear and disappear?

Maybe it is to make best use of cover to avoid getting killed?

 

 

My second point is that the

40k fiction is not a reliable gauge of the relative abilities of Units. 

And same goes for the numbers, they just represent the game rules and how they got balanced for the game.

True, and the numbers and rules change between each edition of the TT game, however in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and now 6th edition of the TT rules the way Swooping Hawks move has stayed pretty much the same.

So (as I pointed out before) either GW has been doing Swooping Hawks wrong since they were first introduced into the game, back when they could drop grenades anywhere mid jump, to the present day... Or as is far more likely, you are just getting the wrong idea about what they can do as a result of judging solely by the fluff and ignoring the primary source for the fluff - the tabletop game.

 

Remember, the Tabletop game is the reason the fluff exists.

Fluff is often written by people who are to all respects fanboys and often what they write bears little relation to the game, is massively OP, and has scant regard for logic, or established fluff written by others.

You dont have to check the novels to decide what is the official lore and what is not, when Games Workshop nod on it, than its going to part of the lore, thats it. some of it hated some of it liked.

but without GW support, they never going part of it.

Obviously, but have you read anything by CS Goto?

Despite being tragically bad his books are sold by Black Library as sanctioned 40k novels but manage to get the 40k lore totally, hilariously wrong. 

Basically he hasn't a clue about the established conventions of the 40k universe and by his own admission couldn't care less.

Should his stories be used to gauge what units can do?

 

For example at one point he has a Terminator and a Dark reaper fight in a wire-fu style with both backflipping about like ninjas on crack!

 

  

I repeat - what the rules of the TT do (and any game for that matter) are to represent how the universe written about in the fluff plays out in practise,

nop, TT rules always in change, same goes with units and there abbilities (good example the Eldrich storm, first they can harm butterflys and ants in the flower garden, above that nothing, now is way better, its actualy harm units), so yes, they are try to represent the universe BUT they change how it fit in the game(according the rage fest and cry from people).

Sure Eldrich storm's effectiveness changes, but the effect (big blast template psychic attack that does damage) has stayed constant. 

It is this constancy amidst change that signals the fact that the people at GW have an idea of what Eldrich storm does in the gameworld even if the exact damage it deals varies.

Now I have covered this already but it bears repeating... You are saying that a unit which has always had to land at the end of it's jump in EVERY version of the rules and with EVERY incarnation of the codex is not working as it should because you think that the fluff indicates that it should be different. 

 

without these rules defining the limitations of units we would be forced to rely on a schizophrenic body of stories, each of which plays up one particular race or faction to such an extent that they appear godlike in power.

Yes, well true, but life not fair in the first place, so don't belive an ancient civilization like Nekrons or Eldar be in the same league with humans, but in TT, they are.

"Life isn't fair" is not a reasoned argument and doesn't explain why a race whose basic soldiers can wipe out entire armies in one person's stories are weak as lambs in another's.

The answer to seeming paradox is simple and has nothing to do with how ancient and powerful a race is.... it's because the writer wants to make that particular race, faction, chapter, whatever out to be super powerful so that their book will appeal to the slobbering fanboys who want to read about how great their army is. 

 

That's why 40k books can't be used to justify why one troop should be more or less powerful!

 

 my exact words were: Hawks have never acted as you describe here, they have always had to land as proven by the fact that they are subject to terrain tests.

 

Maybe you think that they should be fully aerial due to the wings and the concept art showing them flying (which is hardly surprising as the presence of wings makes that setting more - apt - artistically!), but there are plenty of pictures showing them on the ground or just taking off / landing. Basically I am saying that the clue is in the name SWOOPING Hawks. They swoop down, then take off again!

yep, yep, but i same goes for me, never said they never land, and i think yes, they made for aerial, altho not a long ranged ones (when they have the speed and fast manuverability and to glide far add this up and you can imagin what they can do without TT numbers)

If you read my edit to the original post above (particularly the blue section) you will see that there is at least one (I'm sure I can think of many more given time) way that the way  Hawks movement as represented on the tabletop can be squared up with what the fluff claims they can do.

But none of that changes my basic point that in order to see what Hawks are capable of one needs to be able to compare them to other units, and the fluff alone simply doesn't allow that kind of comparison. 

 

Also the fluff simply doesn't state whether they remain airbourne or not, it just refers to their ability to fly very high and to swoop back down again, so you are --- in your own words "Imagin(ing) what they can do".

 

 

Now you claim they act as a flyer because they have wings and some fluff describes how their wings confer a speed and agility of flight unsurpassed by the other races yada yada, but I say that the only way to see exactly what that means in practise is to look at how it is represented without all the praise and flowery words.

GW describe them what they have, not me, as how they implement a game where balance the main reason and for fun, as i sayd before, life is not fair, and dont compare a single jetpacked marine(what is realy jumping) and a swooping hawk (they glide). but as you sayd before in TT they are lame, but in lore they are awsome, and when this game just give the stuff they have, they going to be awsome .

I'm sorry but the fact that the game is 'balanced' isn't a very good argument for why certain units aren't as strong as you think they should be.

You see the game doesn't try to balance one unit with another solely in terms of power. There is also the relative cost of each unit to consider.

 

 

So if GW wanted to make a single trooper super powerful all they need to do is to make it cost much more.... The game is still balanced, but the units aren't equivalent.

 

I've pointed out why the fluff about Swooping hawks can be 'creatively' read to make them seem far more powerful than they actually are on the TT and explained why both the fluff that you are drawing this conclusion from as well as the way they operate in the TT rules can co-exist. 

It may be that this boils down to a failure of GW to explain clearly why Hawks operate in the way they do rather than a failure of GW to make good rules for Hawks.

 

 

 As I have hopefully pointed out, it's impossible to compare things based on the fluff alone since the fluff often is written by people who are so enthusiastic about a particular race (or trying to sell you on that race's strengths) as to make a realistic comparison or grading of relative ability impossible.

Well true, but same goes with TT data(those numbers just represent a balabnced game where every race is equal and nerfed because of it).

Remember in TT more powerful units are balanced by costing more, not simply by being nerfed down to the same level.

  Nonderyon

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/30/07
Posts: 171

9/03/13 11:19:07 PM#77
Originally posted by quotheraving

A classification you made based on?

that's right Armor.

 

"no one charge in with light infantry" Except for Banshees.

"(unless is part some kind of plan)" and eldar always plan, banshees are not idiots like orks to just charge in and die meaningless death.

 

 Remember, the Tabletop game is the reason the fluff exists.

I don't know why this even mentioned, but let me add some for this: w40k dont even exist without the novels, and a good back story needed for TT to live long and not be forgotten, everyone hear or even read about w40k, as for TT not everyone plays it.

 

Now I have covered this already but it bears repeating... You are saying that a unit which has always had to land at the end of it's jump in EVERY version of the rules and with EVERY incarnation of the codex is not working as it should because you think that the fluff indicates that it should be different. 

Yes, that is my option. land on battlefield is a needed restriction for them for game prupose.

 

The answer to seeming paradox is simple and has nothing to do with how ancient and powerful a race is.... it's because the writer wants to make that particular race, faction, chapter, whatever out to be super powerful so that their book will appeal to the slobbering fanboys who want to read about how great their army is. 

Yes, thats how the marketing work.

But why i meantioned "ancient" is because the technical superiority you can read it in books, where you read about nekrons or even eldar, in TT thats not comes out at all.

 That's why 40k books can't be used to justify why one troop should be more or less powerful!

Most of the people dont even know about TT, they just know the world from books, they like that world from books, and when you give them something soo different from it, that just born dislike.

From my view, the books explain lot of things unlike TT, they just give numbers and sometimes write about why  the nerf or change.

 

Back to Swooping Hawks(again) :

 

 Also the fluff simply doesn't state whether they remain airbourne or not, it just refers to their ability to fly very high and to swoop back down again, so you are --- in your own words "Imagin(ing) what they can do".

 yes, and the skyleap ability made it think of it, what is well behave what flyers can do in 6th edition.(gone on reserve and back), normal jetpack units cant do that.

 

 I'm sorry but the fact that the game is 'balanced' isn't a very good argument for why certain units aren't as strong as you think they should be.

The cost mechanic is a very part of the game balance...and when they not over price it, than going to change the unit somehow.

  As I have hopefully pointed out, it's impossible to compare things based on the fluff alone since the fluff often is written by people who are so enthusiastic about a particular race (or trying to sell you on that race's strengths) as to make a realistic comparison or grading of relative ability impossible.

I didnt state something immposible, i just sayd that they are  way far from useless and what may able to do with that equipment in this game.

 

  quotheraving

Advanced Member

Joined: 8/22/10
Posts: 279

 
OP  9/04/13 1:36:21 AM#78

 Remember, the Tabletop game is the reason the fluff exists.

I don't know why this even mentioned, but let me add some for this: w40k dont even exist without the novels, and a good back story needed for TT to live long and not be forgotten, everyone hear or even read about w40k, as for TT not everyone plays it.

 

Now you're just being silly.

Warhammer 40k exists - the novels exist - the computer games exist - because Games Workshop cobbled together a bunch of science fiction and fantasy tropes to act as the background for a tabletop miniature based wargame.

This is exactly the same as saying that the Star Wars games and novels exist because of the films!

 

Doubtless if the Tabletop game stopped being profitable then all that would be left would be the computer games and fiction, but (and here's the important part) warhammer 40k exists as an extension of the Tabletop game.... Not the other way round.

 

Incidentally I suggest you read Dune by Frank Herbert or the Eternal Champion books of Michael Moorcock - they are the inspiration for much of 40k along with the film Aliens and Terminator.

'The Eternal Champion' was pretty much the inspiration for the Eldar, though Moorcock calls his eldrich, magical, technologically advanced 'Elves' the Eldren. 

 

Now I have covered this already but it bears repeating... You are saying that a unit which has always had to land at the end of it's jump in EVERY version of the rules and with EVERY incarnation of the codex is not working as it should because you think that the fluff indicates that it should be different. 

Yes, that is my option. land on battlefield is a needed restriction for them for game prupose.

Glad you agree - only took 10000 words

But is it really necessary that they 'land' for game purposes? - you yourself mention that Hawks could act as flyers. But flyers are new in 6th edition, so they could easily have been changed to act as skimmers (2nd edition)'.

Hey here's a radical idea- maybe they land because the idea of swooping down on prey like a Hawk is an idea that lies at the very core of what makes them - them! 

  

OFC none of that changes the possibilty that they may gain additional rules for when they are 'flying high' allowing them to act as flyers in larger games (such as Apocalypse),  but as I have pointed out the fluff is not a reason why the way they have always operated on the 40k TT needs to change - if anything the fluff needs to be broadened to explain why they act as they do in a clearer way.

 

 

The answer to seeming paradox is simple and has nothing to do with how ancient and powerful a race is.... it's because the writer wants to make that particular race, faction, chapter, whatever out to be super powerful so that their book will appeal to the slobbering fanboys who want to read about how great their army is. 

Yes, thats how the marketing work.

But why i meantioned "ancient" is because the technical superiority you can read it in books, where you read about nekrons or even eldar, in TT thats not comes out at all.

That made no sense -

Please explain how gravitic control allowing vehicles to fly, living metal, distortion weapons e.t.c. are not good examples of technology that is more advanced than the imperium (who have tanks that still use internal combustion engines!)?

You are assuming that more advanced = more powerful, but how many times in the Eldar fluff does it state that the Eldar technology is more subtle and elegant rather than necessarily more powerful in brute force terms?

 

 

  Nonderyon

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/30/07
Posts: 171

9/04/13 10:48:46 AM#79
Originally posted by quotheraving

Ok, my browser is crashed so my proper aswear gone, and i got tired of explain everithing again...

Cutting the case and the offtopic what we made: i dont agree on you about abilities represent the whole unit right in TT, because the fluff is more realitical  and logical for me (mainly what equipment they have and what the lore say about them compare what they can able to do in TT seems wrong to me and lead them to meaningless death).

I dont even plan to play with them  in the first place when implemented in this game, properly or not, but as i mentioned before, they are sure rebalanced for this game case. (same goes with every unit), so i dont expect anything other than equipment. because thos equipment used by us, players and we decide how.

  Policenaut

Novice Member

Joined: 9/19/13
Posts: 21

9/19/13 7:44:47 PM#80

Brent Ellison, the lead game designer said that list by Savij were "pretty close" so I'm just gonna speculate based off that. Savij's prediction was that SM would get Tactical Marine, Assault, Devastator, Apothecary and Terminator. The real problem though is that Eldar Aspect Warriors are so specialized that it kind of throws a wrench in everything.

 

Dire Avenger - The "all-arounder", balanced offense and defense and whatnot.

Warp Spider - One big problem with Eldar is also the fact that their two Aspect Warriors capable of the "jump pack" slot both use ranged weapons, which would give those two classes ridiculous kiting ability. Warp Spiders have the powerblades but those are also limited to their exarchs. The only thing I can think of to bring them into line with Assault/Raptors/Storm Boyz is to make their death spinners act more like shotguns or some kind of CQC weapon. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving a class with long range that kind of mobility.

Fire Dragon/Dark Reaper - Pretty straight forward. Heavy weapons guys.

Warlock/Farseer - Eldar without psykers? Pfffffffffft.

Striking Scorpion - I'm thinking this would be Eldar's analogue (I'm using analogue very loosely right here) to the Space Marine's terminator. I get the feeling that Terminators will be designed to be a CQC class, while lacking in the mobility of the jump pack classes, will have much more survivability. I chose Striking Scorpions because they're a CQC Eldar class that has access to heavy aspect armor and a decent amount of weapon variety besides. The faction asymmetry would come into play here. Terminators would be bigger, slower and have more health than the Striking Scorpion, but the Striking Scorpion would have a smaller hitbox and be decently more agile than the Terminator.

 

I also want to include Rangers but I have no clue where to put them. I was thinking of instead of Dire Avenger, it would be just a Guardian and the Guardian would have the weapon choices of Guardians, Storm Guardians and Rangers, which would give them a lot of versatility but I dunno.

5 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 » Search