Eldar in DSII

> > the tempest does not exist any more... sorry...
Don't kid yourself...you are in denial.. I'm sure any self respecting GW
representative will tell you that your tank REALLY isn't there, but they
happen to have the NEWEST version and it's oh so much better...AND it only
costs an extra $2.....

> Allan Goodall wrote:

Eldar: as they are the most technologically advanced race in the 40,000
universe I give them enhanced or superior firecons, lots of ECM and stealth. I
don't give them any PDS as there's none on the model and as they have good ECM
to protect them.

Falcon (old model) Heavy MICV. Size 4. FGP power. Grav Movement. Armour 3A.
Stealth 1. Enhanced ECM. Enhanced FireCon. Transport for ten infantry. (I
count each troop as 1 capacity as in SGII rather than each stand as 4
capacity)
Hel/4 in fixed mount.
Free APSW. (2 spare capacity)

Tempest (is there a new model out? If so this is for the old one.) Super Heavy
Battletank. Size 5. FGP power. Grav movement. Armour 5A. Stealth 1. Superior
ECM. Superior FireCon. Backup systems.
2xHel/4 in turret.
MDC/1 in cupola.
APFC (the hull mounted shuriken catapults). Free APSW. (1 spare capacity)

I lost interest in the GW universe at about the time the other Eldar vehicles
came out and so don't really know enough about them to do any stats.

Infantry. Using Steve Gibon's alternative system. Aspect warriors: Dire
Avengers Move: 2(foot) Hits to Kill:4 Firepower:2 Range:8 Swooping Hawks Move:
2(foot) 12(fly) Hits to Kill:3 Firepower:2 Range:8 Fire Dragons Move: 2(foot)
Hits to Kill:4 Firepower:3 Range:6 Howling Banshees Move: 2(foot) Hits to
Kill:4 Firepower:3(4 in close combat) Range:2 Striking Scorpians As Howling
Banshees Dark Reapers (or whatever they were called) Move 2(foot) Hits to
Kill:5 Firepower:3 Range:12

Guardians Move: 2(foot) Hits to Kill:3 Firepower:2 Range:8
APSW and GMS/L teams also available.

Harlequins Move: 4(foot) Hits to Kill:3 Firepower:3(4 in close combat) Range:4

Scouts Move: 4(foot) Hits to Kill:3 Firepower:2 Range:8

Only Fire Dragons, Dark Reapers and Guardians may fire as if they had IAVRs.

If you use points values you'll have to work 'em out yourself.

Cheers,

> Tempest (is there a new model out? If so this is for the old one.)
.APFC (the hull mounted shuriken catapults).
> Free APSW..

the tempest does not exist any more... sorry...

but we still use the old 40K rules for it any way

CMC

> the tempest does not exist any more... sorry...

Really? That's funny the one on my shelf hasn't vanished!

;-)

First, I'm the guy who posts every 6 months or so how I'm about to start
converting to SGII, and then give up and stick with what I
know.  :-)  I should go ahead and push through my DS2 stats, but I'm
looking forward to using bigger armies than I was able to do in SM ed 2
(because of time), and I think I'll have to use E40K for that.

> Steve Pugh wrote:
Do any of the GW conversions use GMS? Is it worth it giving anybody ECM? I
wasn't going to bother with ECM since I couldn't think of many weapons it was
going to have to counter, assuming the models were to be used against other
conversions of GW models. I did plan to convert the models as I saw them, not
as what GW said, so I
didn't feel a need to come up with pop-ups for grav tanks.  And I
think the old Land Raider just looks like it oughta have DFFGs.  :-)

I did feel I was going to have to break some things for GW figures. I don't
like the restriction for fixed mount tanks, especially on a maneuverable grav
tank like an old Falcon. GW minis look like
they need to be able to shoot more than one thing at a time--I was
going to let all vehicles buy multiple fire controls like the oversize
vehicles. But I'd give them different ratings, and assign each weapon to a
different FC, and each FC could fire 1 weapon (unless mounted together like in
normal DSII). I thought about letting vehicles with fixed mounts break the
rule about having a
weapon size no bigger than the vehicle size (or size+1, I forget).

I've got a number of articles I've collected from this group (Allan, Oerjan)
or web pages about this.

I actually bought the 2nd ed Space Marine box as a big box of plastic minis
for DSII, which I had not played at the time. Then, when my friend and I were
going to play a game, I thought the SM rules were simpler, so we started with
that. I've only played DSII once, at Origins with Steve Gibson running a game.

> Steve Pugh wrote:

Wouldn't the Whirlwind be a sort of GMS tank?

> I did feel I was going to have to break some things for GW figures.

I did, too.

> I don't like the restriction for fixed mount tanks, especially on

I agree. I can understand it (to a degree) for 'grounded' vehicles, but I had
a hard time with this for grav vehicles, so allow the old Falcons to act as if
they were turreted.

> GW minis look like

I did this, too, for the LandRaiders I have (gave 'em each an extra FC,
then restricted the fire arc to be Right Side/Left Side). I haven't
figured out how to fuss with the new Falcons yet (been no time to *really*
give it much thought, either).

> I actually bought the 2nd ed Space Marine box as a big box of plastic

That wasn't this past Origins, was it??

Mk

> On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Chris McCurry wrote:

> the tempest does not exist any more... sorry...

Pah. Look at the "Scorpion": Large grav tank armed with a Pulsar and
some self-defence close-in firepower. Just the same as the Tempest,
when it was first publised.

> Andy Skinner wrote:

> >Do any of the GW conversions use GMS?

> At 11:03 AM 8/14/97 +0000, you wrote:

Sounds like mine. The Whirlwind is definitely a SLAM vehicle.

> Allan Goodall wrote:
I would agree, except that I just don't like the SLAM weapon.
I'd rather work like a small-radius artillery, than if you hit one
you can try for the other. And I thought it ought to be more usable against
infantry. But I haven't looked at those rules for a long time.

Also, the Whirlwind looks like it has a limited number of missiles. A SLAM is
a whole salvo of missiles, and I don't see how that thing would get reloaded.
Or are there a bunch of rockets in each tube, and I just see the front of the
first one and the tail of the last one?

> Also, the Whirlwind looks like it has a limited number of

Ah, you see, I'm using the old Whirlwind model as a guide. That and the
illustrations in the first edition Space Marine rulebook. I haven't bought any
Epis stuff from GW for about six years.

The original Whirlwind didn't have any visible missiles, just a box with eight
holes in it.

And even with the silly looking big missiles variants now around, each missile
could have multiple warheads to produce a SLAM type effect

> Steve Pugh wrote:
This is sorta what my converted Whirlwinds look like--I took
a missile launcher from my paper minis collection and glued it to the top of a
Rhino. I like the way they look a lot.

I've also thought you could make an old-style one by putting a
D-connector (like the end of a joystick connector) on a Rhino.