> Andy Skinner wrote:
> Peter Ramos wrote:
Although I tried to keep the overall character of each army I did not feel
compeled
to reproduce certain abilities the epic system is based on. Pop-up kind
of abilities I will leave with VTOL's not grav vehicles. As I made the stats I
used the vehicles appearance, just as the DSII recommends.
> I'd do the latter, not providing pop-ups
To counter the problem of "epic" type units having so many weapons systems I
did add extra fire controls and cost to those vehicles. It does get expensive
with the larger vehicles but I guess they should pay for the priveledge
anyway. Now note I use the phrase "weapon system". That means I have given
extra fire controls for a "system" not individual weapons.
For example the predator, one HKP type weapon and two HEL's, I gave it one
fire control for one weapon sytem type HKP and one for the two HEL's (which
although two separate weapons its still the same system type). This way
vehicles don't wind up with inordinate amounts of fire control. In our example
the predator could target two different targets.
> . I think applying capacity rules a bit
yes. I used Mr.Gibsons rules with some modifications. His work made my
conversions a lot easier.
> I'd prefer a points-only construction system, with capacity only being
The format I'm giving it derives from from Andy Cowell's page. His generator
was is key in quickly getting each conversion in an acceptable format that
includes all pertinent information, weapon ranges, special rules (if any),
cost (with its full formula derivation) and also my comments on why I
envisoned a certain vehicle in a certain way. With this format people can have
a ready use reference since its mostly tables.
> So, anyway, I'm interested in seeing the conversions, as well as the
Since starting tommorrow I will start typing this up and I'll be silent on
this mailing list for that time. I will share some brief points and problems.
As far as army character I molded each army thus,
Eldar Mainly a grav's army with fast rates of move. Since they are the most
technologically advanced race they will have access to certain rules in DSII
that others will not have (like stealth and superior fire controls). Of course
this means fielding eldar will be the classical quality versus quantity, since
their costs of individual units is very high)
Man They willbe in a mid point of tech as placed between elves and orcs.
Imperial guard units are on par with orcs except they have slightly better
power sources and weapons systems. Marines have the best humanity can offer
and are more expensive.
Orcs Low tech, but a dime a dozen. I beleive you can get a real horde effect
due to low point costs. They are limited to HMT power sources HVP type
weapons.
Squats Very high tech, with stuff maybe even eldar don't have, but possible
even fewer in number than eldar.
Chaos The human side of chaos conforms to regular Imperial designs. The
supernatural part of chaos I have tried to translate in DSII terms there epic
type powers, limiting them to very close range local effects.
Tyranids Even cheaper than orcs, due to their organic make up I thought I'd
price their power sources as cheap as HMT, due to efficiency although they can
produce power like FGP. Individually they are fragile but you gets loads of
them.
The real only conversion problem I have faced was how to acomodate the morale
rules to each army since most of them have drastically different psychology
than humans, I hope my interpretations are good enough.
> I'm definitely going to be spending more time with SGII, and a friend
Thanks
> Peter Ramos wrote:
I'd like to see them. I've never switched from Epic to DSII, though I
originally bought the SM 2nd box for figures for DSII. (I know we disagree as
to the quality of Epic 40K.) I especially would like to hear how you apply the
rules. For example, will you try to reflect the Epic behavior of a miniature
in your DSII conversion, or design the
vehicle as it appears to you? I'd do the latter, not providing pop-ups
to grav vehicles, for example. On the other hand, some vehicles that
are not over-sized just look like they ought to be able to shoot more
than one gun at a time. I've been thinking of generalizing the rule
allowing over-sized vehicles to buy more than one fire control. I
wouldn't make one for every weapon on the model (for GW minis, that might get
excessive:), but there are some I'd like two for. Some
people just ignore the one-weapon at a time rule, but I'd like for a
vehicle to pay for it in points. I think applying capacity rules a bit
flexibly helps, and is what Steve Gibson did in some of his conversions. (For
example, not charging 3x capacity for a turret with a restricted arc,
especially when you put two on a vehicle on opposite sides, and can only shoot
one at a time.)
I'd prefer a points-only construction system, with capacity only being
determined by the way the mini looks. That way you basically allow the style
of minis you use to determine the capacity system you use. If you like
realistic, you'll have more realistic looking miniatures. GZG gives me full
permission to use the games as I want, though, so it is easier to apply the
rules they give flexibly than to make my own points system.
So, anyway, I'm interested in seeing the conversions, as well as the
approaches you took.
I'm definitely going to be spending more time with SGII, and a friend was very
impressed with it in a sample game and from reading the rules I loaned to him.
So maybe after I'm more familiar with that I'll try DSII again.
thanks,
> Andy Skinner wrote:
> With pop-ups for VTOLs, not gravs, and fire controls for weapon
I have seen some others in the past voice the same idea so what little
playtesting I have done seems to back it as a good approach.
> > For example the predator, one HKP type weapon and two HEL's, I gave
Not necessarily. One the really big vehicles, minor weapon batteries and their
fire cons are usually lesser in accuracy. It all depends of the role these
weapons have (what I envisioned them to be).
Example the Leviathan's main weapons have very good fire cons while the lesser
gun turrets hae basic. They rely on sheer firepower not accuracy.
> I did similar things with army character. Eldar with grav movement
I placed real cutiing edge stuff on their vehicles, their supposed to be a
race of few numbers but really impressive tech.
Yup, marines have all sorts of DFFG stuff (landspeeders, attack bikes, robots,
dreadnoughts, etc).
> I've wondered about things like ablative armor. I gave lasers mostly
HEL's are used on both sides although much more by the eldar. Ablative is an
expensive technology so I gave it more to the eldar in defense, but marines
(being the elite among humans) also have a precious few (actually just the
land raider) with ablative. I guess I went with the logic if I use "A" a lot I
should have defenses against "A" just in case my enemy uses "A" too.
GMS seems to be used mostly by humans (squats, chaos and orcs also do so), so
infantry carry lighter versions while heavier versions are on dreadnoughts,
robots and some vehicles. As too its defense the races with more technology
use ECM in form of the paint they use on their vehicles, low techs like orcs
use reactive armor (the plates so many of their models seem to have made me
think this). of course higher tech races have superior ECM. As for humanity
ony marines have this expensive tech (ecm)
Point defence system are mainly anti-air, but some of the higher tech
races have units
that can have a dual air/ ground role.
I even found appropriate vehicles for placing fragmentation belts (like
assault gorgons). So without going overboard I tried to place (within reason)
most of the weapon options the game system gives.
As a short summary these armies weapons:
Eldar, mainly laser, I have included a new category of weapons (warp energy
projector, WEP) that only eldar use. its on par with DFFG but more range, very
expensive though (20X class of weapon).
Humanity, mainly HKP, a few HEL's and MDC's. GMS are also widespread, but
usually infantry marines have much more DFFG's
Orks, mainly HVC's some modest reactive armor and a lot of GMS
Squats, basically all weapons favoring DFFG's
Chaos, as per humans with warp projectors from their more
arcane/supernatural allies.
Tyranids, instead of making new weapon systems I compared them to the system
it most looks like. Example: biocannons='HEL, frag spines=ASPW, etc)
Well I just started typing it, hopefully in a week or too it will be done.
With pop-ups for VTOLs, not gravs, and fire controls for weapon systems,
not weapons, it sounds like you're taking an approach very similar to what
I've thought about.
> For example the predator, one HKP type weapon and two HEL's, I gave it
Yes, that does sound a lot like I'd do it. I don't really know which weapons
are supposed to be what on these things, so I'll assign 'em by what I think
they look like. Do you make extra firecons the same level as the first, as per
rules? I don't see a need for that, as long as each firecon is assigned to a
specific weapon system.
I did similar things with army character. Eldar with grav movement and lasers.
I picture Space Marines as having DFFGs, especially on the Land Raider.
I've wondered about things like ablative armor. I gave lasers mostly to the
Eldar, so it makes sense for them to use ablative armor. I guess it
depends on the history--are wars normally inter-species, or have the
civilizations recently met, so their military would be used to fighting others
from the same technology? If army A has lots of lasers and their enemy B
doesn't, it makes more sense that A would have ablative armor (even though
they won't need it) and that B wouldn't (even though they do). Or does it?
Similar question for other weapon systems and specific countermeasures, such
as GMS and PDAF.
How did you handle such things?
thanks,