Subscribe to:
13 posts / 0 new
Last post
Richard Deane
Epic Armageddon thread: Discussion and house rulings.

The main purpose of this thread is to provide somewhere for people to discuss lists, sort out games and generally chat about the game. I also want it to be a place where we can discuss and agree on tweaks and changes that we would (as a club) like to see happen to the game.

First up I'd like to say thanks to Chris for the game last night, it was really run testing out the Imperial knights force and whilst it has to be acknowledged you did make some pretty terrible tactical decisions and the dice were a bit cruel at times we certainly got to see the knights do well. It was in part because of this game that I'd like to bring up the first suggestion we had for game changes to test out.

First one is a general terrain rule: Rivers.

Rivers count as dangerous terrain to infantry and vehicles with no effect on War engines. Infantry get a 6+ cover save for being in a river.

This change is simply a common sense one to make tables with rivers more playable and less dependent on having multiple bridges and fords along it's length.

Second change is one I talked quite a bit with Chris about and is the first example of play testing a house rule for the sake trying to better reflect the background and character of the unit on the table. This change is something that seems to have been discussed a few times but never quite made it to play-testing.

Land raiders become damage capacity 2. (Technically this would also make them war engines but for terrain purposes at least they will stay vehicles.) This makes them significantly sturdier and better in firefights as well as helping make them a lot harder to break. Initially I want to keep their price the same as one of the problems currently is that they are over-costed for what they bring and this doesn't do that much to change their basic board presence. This change applies to all land raiders and their relatives across all the factions that use them. (So all space marine and chaos space marine forces will get the benefit of this.)

Blip's picture

Yep, I was playing like a complete muppet on Tues! I'm blaming a busy day at work followed by food comma during deployment ! :-)

As discussed, i think this is a great idea. We should start with the Landraiders right away and i thought your version of the assault temeinators seemed reasonable as well.

I will try to put a list together soon of thoughts i have wanted to try out for a while - from the subtle to the extreme! and see which we think is worth trying out.

Richard Deane

Yes, we both agree that mistakes were made. Many, many mistakes.

I would like to trial a number of things but think it best if we introduce changes one at a time and give them a few games to test out before adding others. I also want to see both the terminator change and the ones we discussed about regular marines (and chaos marines as well to be honest) but would like see the impact of each by itself to ensure we get a fair appraisal of its impact on the game. Multiple changes can have cascading effects and it can be very difficult when trialling lots of things at once to see which was more or less impactful than the others.

Hopefully once Ian gets back and if both Pauls are keen we ought to be able to see one club game of epic almost every week depending on interest.

Regarding the land raider change, I'm already writing up Dark angel lists to give them a trial.

Ian Wood
Ian Wood's picture

Agreed, I think that even came up as a suggestion when we started brainstorming about a homebrew DA list. Treat Land Raiders as DC2 War Engines for everything but terrain and it allows all sorts of fluffy things like Land Raiders barging infantry out of the way in an assault, before the Terminators or other transported units get out and join in.

Richard Deane

Ahead of our Dark angels vs Imperial knights game Chris, did you want to use your own scenery or the clubs? I'll set up a 6x4 table for us using either the red earth board or the grey lino matt.

I'm still dithering over the exact list but my aim is to have at least a formation of land raiders in the list.

Blip's picture

Hi Richard,
Sorry only just seen this. I should be bringing plenty of terrain tomorrow, but feel free to set up and we can add a few roads and buildings to finish it off when i get there. By the way, i was planning to bring guard and try out the 2x battle cannon shots currently being trialed on taccoms if thats ok? But i will bring the knights too.


Richard Deane

No worries about what to field. If you want to field the guard instead to try something out the feel free. Although I don't follow the taccoms forum particularly (I take a look occasionally) so you'll have to tell me what you mean.

Keen to see what our land raider change does to them honestly.

Blip's picture

Cool. The BB change is simply to give them 2x AP/AT 3+ to try and bring them some parity to Shadowswords. Unconvinced myself, but worth giving a go. I should be there by 6.30.

Richard Deane

Thanks for the game Chris, the game was a wonderful mess. I really need to bubblewrap terminators better but it seems that I've more luck passing invulnerable saves than re-enforced ones. (Why I do not know but the ravenwing were definitely a lot tougher than the terminators in that game.)

The change to the baneblade cannons may have been an improvement to them but I don't think it made enough of the difference. Shadowswords still seem the default choice considering the value of their (usually) very reliably main gun. I don't know what change would make most sense though as the only other point of reference I have for a comparable war engine are Ian's death guard versions which are a completely different kettle of fish. (Quick question by the way were you using the UKepic steel legion or the NetEA list?)

As for our other play-test model, the land raiders were definitely better, luck played more than a small part in it as the shadowswords took two hits to kill one land raider but it definitely highlighted the impact of what we were trying to change. The separate formation of raiders didn't get attacked at all, was that because they weren't that threatening or simply because you wanted to attack more efficient targets?

Blip's picture

Yeah, good game. Given my luck by seeing off both terminator units for no loss *should* have resulted in a better result. But as always with guard, i struggle to get moving forward without the units getting clipped off one by one. In retrospect i probably should have puhed forward with my sup-com unit on the left, but alas...

Land raiders seemed good. I have a concern that FF 4+ might make a formation of them a bit good - 8x4+ with RA !! But otherwise emthey seemed fine.

Banebaldes are a tricky one. Im trying to feed into the thread on taccoms to at least get some improvement, but i agree, they need a bit more umph imho. I still like the idea of infiltrate representing a rolling assault (they are supposed to be the line breaker tank in the fluff)... but a bit too radical for taccoms i think :-)

Richard Deane

We can play more games and see whether or not we find the land raiders prove too effective and/or resilient in firefights but it's worth waiting to see how it pans out before meddling further.

To make the comparison within the same army, land raiders are the same cost as terminators. With our change they are much harder to shift now thanks to the DC2 but it's only after this change that the land raiders achieve similar volume of attacks in engagements. The terminators are 3+/3+ with 4 attacks in firefights but 8 in CC with half of them being MW attacks. The land raiders are in general better outside or engagements due to speed and range but their guns are split into just AT and AP guns with vastly better anti-tank firepower than infantry whereas the terminators are equally able to tackle tanks and infantry with a respectable number of shots.

Our game proved that the change makes the land raiders much more durable, which was our intention but it's only one game and as you say, we need to see how them impact things elsewhere.

Coming back to the baneblades. The extra firepower helps a little and should probably stay. If the background has them as more of a linebreaker formation then making them more effective at engaging would help. I'm not sure I like giving them infiltrate as that makes them a very different type of formation. I'd prefer to make them more mobile generally by upping their speed to 20cm which would extend their engage threat slightly but more importantly would let them get around the table faster and encourage people to lead advances with them as well.

Our game did demonstrate how tough a full company of them is as I only broke them due to the crit blowing one up and them failing to rally the previous turn meaning the blast markers had built up. Strictly speaking I only managed to get 3 damage past your saves. Their slow speed and often limited application of their many weapons is in my view more of reason for their lack of appeal. Changing a units speed can have some impressive levels of impact as I discovered playing Ian whilst he was trialling the plague towers. (Those things are very different at SPD 20 vs SPD 15.)

Blip's picture

Richard - might be of interest :

Basically a space marine ground ponder list. Bigger formations, more Armour, that kind of thing. Might be worth giving a go sometime?

Richard Deane

It does look quite interesting. Bigger formations is definitely something I feel marines need. Certainly worth giving a go at some point.