Are these errors or really weird design choices?

Rules discussions and clarifications.
Post Reply
Mr.prowler
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 1:53 am

Are these errors or really weird design choices?

Post by Mr.prowler » Sun Jan 19, 2020 4:35 pm

So it's no new fact that the new builders have some oopsies now and then, but I can't tell if these are oopsies or really weird design choices. The ravager and stalker have the same hull, which usually means they would have the same move, but the stalker moves 2 inches farther than the ravager (6 vs 4). Conversely, the ravager has no move and fire limitations! Great on exceptional terrain where it can move as far as a grav tank and still kick ass, but if this is the case why is the stalker, which is very short range, limited to 4" mf?

Every other unit in the game that shares a chassis moves the same amount, and they usually have the same mf too?

In addition, what is the point of the melee rule? Units with this rule already have a very short range value listed on their melee weapon statlines, so why is melee needed? Are units not allowed to shoot when they touch normally? Is that the reason for the rule? Does melee mean that we should disregard the listed range and only count b2b models as being in range?

Why is it that some models with melee weapons have the melee rule and some don't? Oppressor, ravager, stalker, despot, eradicator, screamer and the prowler all have "melee weapons" but not all of them have the melee rule. Why? Is this one of those "escort rule on monitors" situations or just poor book keeping?

The last one I could find:
Why does the corruptor have armor 9 instead of 10? It shares the same chassis with the reaver gunship, has the same move and dp, and had same armor last edition. Is this a mistake? It having 9 armor with no explanation is a little weird, as it breaks the scourge aircraft 10 armor tradition, and as far as I can see, there is no reason for it.

User avatar
Gauntlet
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:02 pm

Re: Are these errors or really weird design choices?

Post by Gauntlet » Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:52 am

No idea about the corrupter, but I could see it as a balancing move... you could argue that the additional weight and super-structure makes the vessel more vulnerable... and just for kicks, they chose Armor rather than DP... which is much more nuanced.

Most likely a typo though.

Mr.prowler
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 1:53 am

Re: Are these errors or really weird design choices?

Post by Mr.prowler » Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:53 am

Do you know anything about the stalker/ravager buisness? Or the melee rules inclusion?

Koroshiya
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2019 7:41 pm

Re: Are these errors or really weird design choices?

Post by Koroshiya » Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:10 am

The inclusion of the melee rule I suppose is to try to fix the CQ rule that were originally designed for combat inside garrisons, and not for vehicles in the open.

This fixes:
- Automatic Hits.
- It's the only weapon that can be fired.
- The hits and damage are applied to the squad, not to the unit in contact.

As a side note the resistance Pizarro Class Walker and scourge Prowler, Eradicator & Vampires has forgotten the melee rule.

Post Reply