Background Image

Being A Tacticals "chaperone"

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Djemo-SRB, Mar 6, 2015.

?

Do you like the emphasis on tactical units?

  1. Yes

  2. No

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Shonedar Shonedar Well-Known Member

    hmmmm...right and wrong there...yes archetypes are there, especially for a military organization like SM's...but you can't say that cases like the Grey Hunters (first to come to mind) are not flexible to an extent, and that they can't fill in as "secondary" close combat warrior if needed...that's if the dev's go for lore-friendly strengths, and Grey Hunters get somekind of limited assault branch on their progression.
  2. Laanshor Laanshor Well-Known Member

    That's not exclusive to Grey Hunters. CSMs (Traitors) have access to melee gear in lore/TT and at least from the old Dev quotes Tactical-classes will likely have *some* access to melee weapons but not nearly as good at using them. They are somewhat more tactically adaptive than the other archetypes, in the same vein as the Support classes needing to mix it up in both ranged/melee squads (coincidence, I think not !!).

    The Space Wolf naming stuff is interesting but not unique either, it depends how EC approaches categorizing the classes/sub-classes though. For instance a Raptor class without a Jump Pack is an 'Assault Chaos Space Marine' according to Brent. Probably an 'Assault Traitor' now I suppose. And Ork Boyz are broken into different class groupings that have never existed in 40K in some cases. Guess we'll see how it looks in future, but the bottomline is that they're still being designed with those archetypes in mind regardless of the terminology (though it's important !) :)
  3. Interesting discussion you have here :) A few thoughts and comments from my sick nurgled mind...

    I have to say, I really like this concept. Mainly because it would make tacticals a more popular choice and prevent assaults to be the best capturers and ruining epic siege expiriences.

    Walls/doors/gates might be pretty far away from the "headquaters" of the fortress, where the capture point is. To effectively protect the fortress from JP users (coming from arbitrary directions), the defenders would need patrols within the fortress, i.e. they would spend resources and manpower on the inside of the fortress instead of the front line. While noobs will blindly run towards the battle and man the walls, it will be up to us, organized players, to form the "inner defense" of the fortress - which looks more like a chore, than fun...

    From what Brent said in Warp Echoes #4, capturing of a point would be something like installing a "capturing device" and then protect it for X minutes - not letting it be destroyed/disarmed by the defenders. For me it sounds like a defender of any class can interrupt the capturing process.

    There are lots of suggestions to add capturing capability as a loadout choice for all classes or making different classes capture things with different effectiveness. This may look like a good compromise, but it would still be against the goal the devs are trying to achieve -> they want the capturing of a base to be a steady process, completed in stages. If highly mobile / stealthy units can capture objectives (at all, even if slowly), then the fights will usually start already at the objective, and not at the wall that is meant to protect it.
    Rikamar, Ideas_McGee and Djemo-SRB like this.
  4. Sorantam SpiritofRock Subordinate

    I like it. Restricting capping ability on airborne assaults is a more understandable decision to cut down on ghost and sneak capping, but cutting it for the other characters is interesting. I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays out. Tacticals/traitors are always my favourite kind of marine, and I was admittedly cringing at the thought of Chaos armies composed of raptors, sorcerors and not much else since I imagine they'll be the most popular choices. Win/win.
    Rikamar and Trof like this.
  5. Murtag Murtag Cipher

    I can totally deal with that. I can still play the way I'd like without taking capture points.
    Rikamar, Trof and Ideas_McGee like this.

  6. Btw, maybe they could make it so that the capturedevice takes the slot of the jetpack (because that is the real problem).
  7. 㐃_Miirk Miirk Xenotechnologist

    [​IMG]
    *Hrm hrm* @Policenaut @BikerTroll ;)


    Now would people kindly give any thoughts on my post (p.10 #92)?
    Perhaps it needs another topic though, as we do not (yet?) have confirmed info about base capture mechanics what I know.

    Posting in Q&A about what capturing a base means in practice.
    BERSERK-FURY and Policenaut like this.
  8. send me a msg in a private convo and tell me what you want to know or try to get the answer to
  9. Diasaffected member Norm Well-Known Member

    I also like the idea, but for another reason other than it increases the value of 'x' class or stops assault class swarms.
    I like the way it will make the players involved in an offensive action think about their force as a unit. The assault's and heavie's will have to be aware of where the tacticals are in order to make sure they are supported and the offensive doesn't lose its enabling core. Visa versa the tacs can't go charging recklessly and need to be aware of the offensive's disposistion and if they have cover or not.
    The defensive side also need to "read" the offesive forces disposistion and predict the tacticals intention.

    For me it adds much more depth to the game. It will encourage more players to become organised and reward teamplay.
  10. I like it that is is Tactical-centered. But I think Heavy Supports (Devastators, Havocs, Reaper) should be able to capture and hold, too. I mean, those are the ones who are BUILD to defend places, aren't they?
    Rikamar and Galen like this.

Share This Page