PDA

View Full Version : Holo Fields Changes, possible fix's



Narf
13-09-2008, 22:34
Ok, time for some eldar bashing (not really)

After playing a few games this wkend, one with 3k each side, ive come to notice that:

A) Falcons with holo-fields are near invincible at stealing objectives in the last turn, especially armed with star engines and spirit stones (0"-24" move +12" move in shooting phase)

B) It takes alot to even stop these guys from shooting, never mind actually doing anything else to them.

So having chatted to the guys i played, we decided to try and house rule the next time we played.

Going along the lines of the DE codex and shadow fields, that you can make your saves until you fail one etc we decided the following as a trial.

"If, once hit, the Holo-Fielded vehicle suffers an immobilised or weapon destroyed effect after rolling on the damage chart, the Holo-Fields are removed from future damage rolls in Addition to the damage inflicted by the weapon"

This means an unlucky opponent may still have trouble taking them out, but once you start knocking the vehicle about its "delicate" holo tech stops working and further damge rolls are done as normal.

The other option was that as holo-fields distort the percieved location of the vehicle, that it can never contest an objective cos the eldar player doesnt even know wehre the vehicle would be ;) , but we threw that one out quite quickly.

Now would this unbalance the eldar, as i think they do need the holo-field to keep there relativly "brittle" force alive, would it bring a bit more equalization to the forces? or could there be something else done to correct the "Yellow Cab syndrom" (watch USA godzilla remake and you'll know what i mean)

BTW i am the eldar player in the group, and i think this would be a more fitting version to holofields, as atm you have to be very jammy to do much damage to one of these things if it moves 12+ in a turn.

Any thoughts peeps?

NARF

Radium
14-09-2008, 07:46
I don't really think holofields need to be changed. What does need to be changed however, is the point cost, I'd say 50-60 for falcons/prims would be ok.

But I do think your proposed ruleschange is a very nice idea, it certainly tones the HField down a notch, to a level other armies start to like it. On the other hand, Eldar do sort of need the added survivability bonus of the fields...

Oh, one final note: falcons cannot claim objectives, merely contest them ;). Assuming you play 5th that is.

Narf
14-09-2008, 12:44
True they can only contest, mis-wrote previously, but the ability to move 0-36" in one turn pretty much means thats one objective contested per falcon, therefor why leave your deployment zone with the 1-3 objective in it, hell just guard 1-2 of them and contest the others on the last turn, insta-win.......

The survivability of the falcons with fields is far greater then they should really be when taken in context with the rest of the army, its basically a troop delivery system that isnt gonna get shot down, with some guns on it for show.

Now adding in that as soon as it starts to loose weapons or becomes immobilised it looses it holo-fields makes it fit a bit better (and goes along with the fluff, ie holo-fields work best when moving fast, or is that just battlefleet gothic? And that once theres a smoking crater where the weapons been ripped off its easier to track)

Maybe:

Immobilised = no holofield anymore

Weapon destroyed = holofield remains working on a 4+ (either at the time of the shot that destroys the weapon, or each time a shot is directed towards it it gets a 4+ chance to use the holofields)


Any other sugestions on how to "Fix" the holofield?

NARF

Hellebore
14-09-2008, 13:51
I'm changing them to the following:

Holofield
These are sophisticated field generators that break up the image of the vehicle as well as its IR an EM signatures. The faster the vehicle moves, the harder it becomes to target properly.

Vehicles with holofields no longer receive the Flat Out Cover Save. They use the following rules instead.
Combat Speed grants a 5+ cover save
Cruising Speed grants a 4+ cover save
Flat Out grants a 3+ cover save
If the vehicle is obscured by Cover it adds +1 to the cover save.

This is in line with how holofields worked in EPIC and I think better reflects their function.

The other advantage of this is that it can equally apply to Apocalypse Superheavies as well, so you don't need two seperate entries for the same item.

Hellebore

Narf
14-09-2008, 21:37
Nice, but it does change it away completly from the original idea of holofields within 40k, which i was trying to keep, but making them a bit more fragile, as eldar should be

On the other side of your argument, if say a marine rhino fires smoke, it gets a 4++ cover save, but if it fires smoke and is behind terrain that would hide it, it still only gets a 4++ cover save. Why should eldar suddenly get an extra +1 to there cover save cos they are obsurred when my X-unit wont. This also works for units in area terrain behind other units.

Personnaly i think cover saves should dropped back a notch, ie woods/ruins 5++, buildings 4++, but you get +1 to the save for each other intervening factor.

So my heavies (pick army name) are in the in ground floor ruins (5++) and you decide to shoot them with your heavies, there is some area terrain in the way, and a unit as well, meaning that my heavies would then get s 3++ save (2 seperate things adding to the saving throw)

but this should really be something for another thread about cover and how silly it is atm.

Anymore idea's for holo-fields?

theunwantedbeing
14-09-2008, 22:07
Looks more like being able to take an objective while in a vehicle is the culprit of the problem, not the holo-field.

So it wont matter if it can fly 36" to an objective on the last turn then,as it wont be able to take the objective as the troops inside won't have the time left in the game to get out adn take the objective.

As for changing the nature of the holo-field.
Eldar vehicles are armour 12 at best, this isnt exactly difficult to damage.
So the holo-fields are what makes them difficult to kill, as you need a double 6 to make them explode, which is 6x less likely than normal.

You could make them treat any hit as a glancing on the roll of a 2+.
That way you can still deal them damage but the holo-field makes it tricky to hit anything vital.
Seems fairly fitting.

Having it generate a cover save doesnt seem right as then there's little reason to ever have it in cover as you won't gain any benefit from being there. Which you should, as a holo-field plus things like tree's in the way would make the thing damned tricky to hit, but with a cover save of 4+, it's no more difficult to hit behind those tree's as if it was hovering 3 feet from you.

Cover saves being dropped to 5+ in most cases would certainly be more reasonable.
But that's for another thread.

On a 2+, any penetrating hit is treated as a glancing hit.
That seem okay?
Or a little too good?

Hellebore
15-09-2008, 00:09
As for changing the nature of the holo-field.
Eldar vehicles are armour 12 at best, this isnt exactly difficult to damage.
So the holo-fields are what makes them difficult to kill, as you need a double 6 to make them explode, which is 6x less likely than normal.

You could make them treat any hit as a glancing on the roll of a 2+.
That way you can still deal them damage but the holo-field makes it tricky to hit anything vital.
Seems fairly fitting.

Having it generate a cover save doesnt seem right as then there's little reason to ever have it in cover as you won't gain any benefit from being there. Which you should, as a holo-field plus things like tree's in the way would make the thing damned tricky to hit, but with a cover save of 4+, it's no more difficult to hit behind those tree's as if it was hovering 3 feet from you.


Actually, the original holofields generated to hit modifiers (the faster you moved, the harder it became to actually hit them) as the cover save is now the replacement for a to hit modifier, it follows the original idea about as closely as you can in 40k. Also remember that the Superheavy holofield (which is functionally the same device) gives the vehicles a 4+ holofield save against shots AND close combat.

Holofields never worked against area saturation weapons (where needing to see the target wasn't necessary) thus template weapons with the 'ignores cover' rule ignoring the holofield.

It's actually the 40k holofield that doesn't follow the background more than anything else. I've never liked it, not for any game reason, but because it just doesn't fit with how they work in everything else.



On a 2+, any penetrating hit is treated as a glancing hit.
That seem okay?
Or a little too good?

That's an interesting idea. 2+ ,might be a little too good. Maybe a 3+.


Hellebore

ScytheSwathe
22-09-2008, 15:48
Ive never liked it too much either. I think eldar should be frail.
I think that holos should be dropped to 'treat stunned as shaken' as the current spirit stones, and spirit stones should be 'ignore shaken' making the coupling still potentially very irritating, but not an invincible monstrosity. Effectively means you have a 1/3 chance of ignoring the hit, but the same chance of being blown out of the sky.