Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Discuss every aspect of the Shadow War stand-alone game.
User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#19 » Apr 18 2017 10:52

BillyBones wrote:Also kinda unique for Tau could be building the list exclusively around troopers without specialists as a firewarrior team. In sone previous codexes there was alto an entry for an elite FW team as an ethereal honour guard. My idea is as follows:

Leader would be a Cadre Fireblade 4+ armour, combat blade (possibly a bonding knife with some buffs) and a marker light.

Troopers would be Shas'ui with, same stats as normal, only with BS 4 and only A1, 4+ armour and a combat blade.

Newbies Shas'la with their current profile, same equipment.

The team would consist of 12 models and would have access to 2 drones (gun, ML, that one with field amplifier as do they have now, and I'm not sure whether to give them access to the grav wave and pulse accelerator) - drones would have the same stats as in normal game, but would also have similar advantages as are described in the hover drone for ethereal. And would also propose one change in pinning and that is always can test to recover early and if the fail they roll d6 and on 4+ they just loose thir function for the turn, but can move freely, if they fail they can't do anything including moving.

Gun drone would also have and reroll for shooting and for the first failed ammo roll. ML drone would do the same thing an ML does now, and the field amplifeier would give in invulnerable save 6+ or 5+ in combination with field amplifier relay (the thing that breachers have) in a radius 6''.

The other speciality would be the gun turret. There could be only one and it would auto deploy at the begining of the game and would be imobile, in order to shoot there has to be a model near it (and possibly forgo it's shooting), it would have BS 3 T5 and 4+ save, two options for it would be missile pod with stats similar to autocannon and SMS with S5, damage 1, AP -1, sustain 2 and it would ignore all negative modifiers and also camo cloaks. It would still need LOS I think. Pinning would be similar to drones. In games with various number of models it would be automaticaly deployd if you are defender, but it can't be used at all as an attacker (deploying it would kinda give up the element of surprise).

Special rules for the Tau would be bonding ritual are quite OK, but I would add one thing and that would be to count as I3 for the purpose of testing to recover early in the given radius.

Supporting fire is OK.

Equipment would be the same as it is now with these changes.
Pulse carbine get sustain 1 and option to buy the photon granades as special ammo (S1 dmg1 AP-, small blast, targget is pinned even if it can only be pinned by high S weapon and it can't test early to recover - or maybe counts as I1 for recovery test)
Pulse rifles with range 30, S5 dmg1, AP -2
Pulse blaster with range 0-5 where it gets +2 to hit, S6, dmg d3 AP - 4, range 5-10, to hit +1, S5, dmg 1 AP -2, sustain 1 and range 10-15 with S4 dmg 1 AP- small blast.

Markerlight would be restricred only to the drone and fireblade or maybe up to two other models, but I'm not sure about that, otherwise it would work the same.
There would be an option to buy the field amplifier relay for some points, which would work together with the amplifier drone.

There would be no red dot laser, telescopic sight and camo.

Of course point values woud have to be adjusted accordingly.

Sorry but no. That's going too far. Not just that it would make Tau potentially too strong (again, our only problem is being outranged and outgunned while being more squishy. If you make us as durable as AM with additional armor, same BS, more special weapons while still having our stronger than average basic weapon we would tilt towards the other direction of the balance scale).
But aside from that, your change suggestions are not not adjustments but rather a complete rewrite of the Tau rules in SW:A and making it into a more super veteran Firewarrior team. I think we still want to keep the flavour of it being a Pathfinder/Recon team. Also no Firewarrior ever has BS4. Even Shas'Ui have BS3. Fireblade and Darkstrider are huge exceptions.
Tau shoot good because of their Markerlights, not because they are so good at shooting. Keep in mind that Tau also have bad sight. ;)
If you want BS4 Firewarrior get them by advanving them in a campaign but they have no place as basic unit choice imo.

Rizzle wrote:On that note - people who have played a handful of missions, how do you feel about Pathfinder's ability to contest each objective type? The missions I've done well in have been boosted by the M6 of drones, alongside their durability. I am, however, dreading being the defender on The Raid. That's partly due to I2, with access to I2.5 on the Recon Drone :sad:
Does anyone believe there any missions that Tau are wholly unsuited to beyond our inability to fight toe to toe against other lists? Or rather, could we get the list to a competitive state with small nudges, or is there evidence that a more involved fix would be required?

Just by reading I'd definitely say Raid and by personal experience with my short range CSM against AM the Kill mission as well. Haven't played a lot other missions yet because of dice rolls. :D
Likewise though I think Raid could be a great mission for us if we happen to be the attacker since it allows us to get into range before the enemy can shoot or hide unless we get very unlucky. Again, our basic weapons aren't bad once we get into range.

User avatar
ARC'Thunder
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 850

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#20 » Apr 18 2017 11:49

Great work thus far guys!

I'll update the two front posts tomorrow in a better format (I had quite a late day at work so I didn't get the time to do some of the reorganizing today), as well as chime in with some of my own ideas.

BillyBones, while I appreciate your participation, I want to try to steer this conversation away from wishlisting. I know we're walking a fine line on that topic, but I mean to use the existing framework given to us by GW to improve it—not rewrite the entire kill team.

In reference to other ideas in the thread:
    Pulse Carbine
    I'm in support of adding an underslung photon grenade ammo type or firing mode for a points cost:
    Ammunition
    Photon Grenade Launcher* ......... 20 points
    * Can be purchased for pulse carbines only

    Photon Grenade Launcher
    Pulse carbines are often fitted with an underslung photon grenade launcher that launch these usually defensive grenades great distances. The bright flashes emitted by these grenades allow pathfinders to pin and confuse enemies so that they may advance on their targets for the killing blow, or retreat to better positions.

    A pulse carbine with an attached photon grenade launcher is given an alternative firing profile that you may choose to use instead of its normal profile.

    Range Short 0-12" Long 12"-24" To Hit Short - Long - Str. 1 Dam 1 Save Mod. - Ammo Roll 7+
    Large Blast: A photon grenade emits a bright burst of light that can blind enemies or fry sensors, and so uses a large blast template.
    By using the ammunition rules instead of a pure alternative firing profile, you can circumvent the issues around ammo rolls affecting the normal fire of the gun. Given the nature of the large blast as a pinning device, and it's great distance when compared to other grenades, I feel like the points value and ammo rolls are fairly reasonable (without any playtesting, of course).

    Another alternative might be to see some older Necromunda rules. I think they used to have rules for smoke or fog, and it would be cool if the photon grenades functioned like smoke grenades and imposed a penalty to hit to affected models.

    Also, I can't say I fully support increasing the base range of the pulse carbine. I think it's a difficult situation. Even though the Skitarii carbines, shotguns, and sluggas have increased range from the tabletop, we can still increase ours via the accelerator drone whereas most "close ranged guns" aren't able to mount a telescopic sight. Although, most armies aren't limited to only one basic weapon that has such a short range, and even our range increase is only 6" where other basic guns usually get an additional 12". If we were to increase the base long range of the carbine to 24" (maybe 20"-22"? Shadow Wars doesn't seem to worry about strange weapon ranges) it would most certainly need to be more expensive at 35-40 points.

    Burst Cannon: I have mixed feelings about the burst cannon being re-classified as a special weapon. I think the move or shoot mechanic works for the stealthsuit which is reliably difficult to hit; it can get within the 18" range safely for a turn to fire in the next. Obviously that leaves the recon drone in a weird spot though, because it's not only easy to hit, but also has a worse save (part of the solution might be to give the recon drone its deserved second wound and make it unshakeable so it has the means to weather hits in order to fire). An alternative to removing it's heavy status might be to increase its range to 24"-28"; this would allow the fairly mobile drones/stealthsuit to maneuver into good positions that could still fire at reacting targets and overwatch effectively.

    Mind also that the fusion blaster is also classified as a heavy weapon, and I think the reason for both of them to be in this category is to encumber the user.

    Drone Limits: I agree with making drones a separate 3 models from the base team. It reflects the tabletop and again, frees up our team composition in a protracted campaign.

    Jetpacks: I like what Peregrim stated, but I'm not sure about ignoring falling damage. While it makes up for the lowered initiative of the drones, who shouldn't be prone to falling given they are permanently floating disks, I could still see arguments that they may not recover from a dive or fall in time to slow their descent. Even the Chaos Raptor and it's jump pack can still take falling damage (although it has a much greater movement value).

    Special Weapons: Again, Peregrim's idea for the alternate profile for the ion rifle seems solid, and I think I support the idea of decreasing the blast damage from D3 to 1. Although, if that's the case, part of me thinks the ion rifle should have simply 1 damage all around, but use the normal strength values from the tabletop.

    If that's the case, I think the rail rifle could stay at d3 damage, but it should have it's save mod adjusted to be closer to that of a meltagun, or at the very least a plasma gun (-5 or -4, respectively). The more variable wounds, combined with a better armor penetration feels more accurate to the lore, the tabletop, and keeps it distinct and valuable when compared to an updated ion rifle. Although, the increased ability to pen armor without qualifying as a High Impact weapon, may cause some weird situations wherein Terminators should obviously be diving for cover because it's piercing their armor, but it isn't strong enough for them to want to?

Anyways, I have to head out for the night. I'll see what gets posted tomorrow, and hopefully have time to restructure the front posts to reflect the discussion and proposed changes thus far.

o7

BillyBones
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 111

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#21 » Apr 19 2017 02:06

Yes my post was meant as a whole new entry, like another faction. If I look back at it criticly I see it is too strong and that was not my aim, and it would really be more appropriate for FW to have BS 3 instead of 4, but the current mechanics of ML is only ignoring cover, not insreasing BS, that's why i tried BS4, the otrer reason was that all of the other armies have native BS4 (apart orks, nids and genestealers), most of them can also get anoter +1 a reduce cover to -1, so they would still shoot with effective BS 4 at well hidden targets. But with the upgrades I gave to the weapons I think BS 3 would be more appropriate. I this case I would argue to change ML to give +2 to BS instead of simply negating cover and have it restricted to team leader and the drones, this way all of the drones would have distinct advantage and role would force you to carefully choose which one you will buy.

If I would talk points, I would say 80 points for the regular trooper, a space marine sout has 100 with better stats across the board, guardsman has 60 I think and probably 80 with carapace armour, and it would still have better BS, WS and I. The weapons would be 40-50 pts. and all of them would be basic.

I had this idea mostly for the reason, that PF have only one basic weapon choice and I don't see a way around it.

Anyway If I would get back to PF kill team, then mostly it would help to stick to normal Tau profiles for the drones and special weapons, which means that BC and FB are assault weapons, RR is fine, but ion rifle need changes. The basic pulce carbine should be sustain 1 as it is assault 2 in normal game, same thing was done to shuriken catapults and I believe to shoota as well. Also movement of the drones would be the same hover drone as I described in my previous post. In WH 40k, PFs have 3 special weapons in the team, so it would be appropriate here as well. Change the MLs to give +2 instead of just negating cover, that would gave ML back their true purpose and would counteract our crappy BS, at the cost of not shooting. All of this would more or less to make the PFs like tey are in the codex. Last thing would be the grenade launcher for PC in some form as is discused here.

BillyBones
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 111

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#22 » Apr 19 2017 06:28

As I'm looking through the codex I realized some other things, PFs can have one of each three special drones and they can also have two of the standard drones, I think that this should also be the same for kill team, with the special weapons I'm fine with RR becoming heavy combined with the increase in range, but it should have AP -5 like the FB. The ion rifle should retain it's range 30'' and have both profiles 0-15 +1 to hit, S7 dmg D3 AP -3, or the blast profile with heavy, small blast S8 dmg 1 AP-3, unreliable, exactly as in the codex. The shas'ui can also have a black sun filter, but I'm not sure how to incorporate it and also EMP grenades don't really have a use here, since there are no vehicles.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#23 » Apr 19 2017 06:33

Yeah a Shield Drone for 50p that gives every Pathfinder in 6" range a 4++ (or even just a 5++) would solve a lot of our problems already.

User avatar
Rizzle
Kor'La
Kor'La
Posts: 123

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#24 » Apr 19 2017 06:54

I wouldn't get too hung up on porting the 40k incarnation of Pathfinders into Shadow War, except where doing so directly covers a balance issue. Ideally, a skirmish level game can capture the essence of a Pathfinder team better; that's one of the reasons I've been looking at established fiction for new space to explore.

In this case, I also think a 10+5 team would be very strong. Gun drones ought to make great patrol candidates too and at that point you'd need to think carefully about the overall balance of the list.

But yeah! Additional drone types would be ace. The Guardian Drone had established a generator/amplifier dynamic. I've been sketching out the idea of having a single support system 'slot' in Recon armour. The guardian field amplifier for 5++ within 6" of an MV36 Guardian Drone (normally 6++) becomes an interesting choice if that slot could instead be filled by, say, a Target Lock granting +1 to hit on marked targets or a mirage field amplifier granting camo gear (plus, say, the ability to hide in the open when near a MV5 Stealth Drone) and so on.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#25 » Apr 19 2017 07:19

Rizzle wrote:I wouldn't get too hung up on porting the 40k incarnation of Pathfinders into Shadow War, except where doing so directly covers a balance issue. Ideally, a skirmish level game can capture the essence of a Pathfinder team better; that's one of the reasons I've been looking at established fiction for new space to explore.

In this case, I also think a 10+5 team would be very strong. Gun drones ought to make great patrol candidates too and at that point you'd need to think carefully about the overall balance of the list.

But yeah! Additional drone types would be ace. The Guardian Drone had established a generator/amplifier dynamic. I've been sketching out the idea of having a single support system 'slot' in Recon armour. The guardian field amplifier for 5++ within 6" of an MV36 Guardian Drone (normally 6++) becomes an interesting choice if that slot could instead be filled by, say, a Target Lock granting +1 to hit on marked targets or a mirage field amplifier granting camo gear (plus, say, the ability to hide in the open when near a MV5 Stealth Drone) and so on.

The problem with the Guardian Drone is that it fills the very same role the Shield Drone was supposed to have fluff-wise. Just better executed rules-wise. Also Pathfinders don't have access to the Guardian Drone normally. It's a Breachers thing that partially crosses over to Strike Teams.
So since they fill the same roll just with one lacking on the rules department in regular 40k, why not just take the one Pathfinder normally have access to and give it proper rules. ;)

However I agree that we shouldn't get too hung up on how Pathfinders are in regular 40k. Another thought I had was that Drones shouldn't count toward your model count for bottle tests. It's already stupid enough that Drones can cause your unit to run away in regular 40k anyway.

User avatar
Peregrim
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 149

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#26 » Apr 19 2017 07:21

ARC'Thunder wrote:Also, I can't say I fully support increasing the base range of the pulse carbine. I think it's a difficult situation. Even though the Skitarii carbines, shotguns, and sluggas have increased range from the tabletop, we can still increase ours via the accelerator drone whereas most "close ranged guns" aren't able to mount a telescopic sight. Although, most armies aren't limited to only one basic weapon that has such a short range, and even our range increase is only 6" where other basic guns usually get an additional 12". If we were to increase the base long range of the carbine to 24" (maybe 20"-22"? Shadow Wars doesn't seem to worry about strange weapon ranges) it would most certainly need to be more expensive at 35-40 points.

Nearly every other faction has a basic range of 24". The exceptions are Dark Eldar, Eldar, Harlequins, Tau, and Tyranids. Most of these exceptions make sense. Dark Eldar, Harlequins, and Tyranids are all melee factions; Eldar have sustained dice on their basic guns. I don't see how Tau fit among the exceptions. And, while not every faction can increase their range (e.g. with telescopic sights), most/all ranged factions can.

Costs are derived from the WH40K codex. One pathfinder's cost (with standard equipment) is 10x the codex cost. I suppose there's a floating 5 pts, but I'm not sure I agree that the cost of our basic guns would need to be increased if its range was increased to match the typical basic range for SW:A.

User avatar
ARC'Thunder
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 850

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#27 » Apr 19 2017 07:34

Peregrim wrote:Costs are derived from the WH40K codex. One pathfinder's cost (with standard equipment) is 10x the codex cost. I suppose there's a floating 5 pts, but I'm not sure I agree that the cost of our basic guns would need to be increased if its range was increased to match the typical basic range for SW:A.

While I agree to some extent about the points costs being derivative of 40k's own, I think we would benefit from using up that floating 5 points. I say this based on the points values of other factions' weapons. For example, the Skitarii radium carbines cost 35 points, benefit from the extra range, have the +1 to hit at short range, while having worse strength and no save modifier when compared to our own carbines.

EDIT: I might even suggest decreasing the points costs of our soldiers by 5, and compensate by using the net extra to add to the cost of the carbine. Skitarii fresh-forged are 65 points, and have a better WS, BS, I, Ld, and save over our pathfinder troopers. Mind, I don't know how much of our base cost might be an inbuilt "markerlight tax", but still, we have to be conscious of its high S and good save mod and can afford 5-10 points on a longer ranged carbine (and its ability to have increased range via accelerator drones).

BillyBones
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 111

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#28 » Apr 19 2017 09:22

It really doesn't matter how much a piece of equipment cost, 5 or 10 points really doesn't make a difference. In an campaign you will have more than enough points to get whatever you want. The worst problem Tau suffer is we are not able to make hits and hitting the enemy model is much more important because of pinning rules and pinned models can't shoot back, anybody who keeps that in mind will eat tau for lunch, especially with camo gear. As for the drones, don't think of them as models, but rather an equipment, pulse acc. drone is our telescopic sight, grav inhibitor, our little edge to cc (although its rules need to be changed), if a shield drone would give lets say 5++ on a radius, that is our compensation for camo gear. ML drone would be that red dot laser, recon drone our only thing with sustain fire and the there is a gun drone. And if it would go by WH40k you can have only one of each special drones (two can't shoot) and up to two normal drones, which would be brought over here as well and remember that in campaign drones wouldn't get all the advances and stat boosts as normal troopers.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#29 » Apr 19 2017 10:22

BillyBones wrote: if a shield drone would give lets say 5++ on a radius, that is our compensation for camo gear.

More like compensation for carapace armor really.
But I agree that Drones and Markerlights fulfill the role of the other Misc gear for Tau...too bad they do it worse for more cost (points AND team slots and can get killed).

User avatar
Rizzle
Kor'La
Kor'La
Posts: 123

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#30 » Apr 19 2017 10:39

But!

At least the Tau options work when the users move, and they play to suitable themes by having a unique (to Shadow War) collaboration mechanic.
I agree that the net result is far weaker, but is it weak enough that moving to 10+3, markerlight countering camo and adding the option of a Marker Drone at 50pts wouldn't be enough to make a Tau list a reasonable starting point?


(I'm inclined to use the Guardian Drone plus optional amplifier unit as it will more closely meet the expectation of players familiar with Tau hardware. Shield Drones have 15+ years of nobly catching bullets for Crisis teams at this point - that's the job they do and they do it well.)

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#31 » Apr 19 2017 10:47

Aye they do have their advantages. Just we don't have anything from it by being able to move and use them if we are pinned/downed.
Once more, beside all the quality of life changes, I'd like to say the ONE problem we have is delivering our dakka without getting picked apart on the way.
Hence why I think a Shield drone with a invul bubble (that also prevents pinning if the hit gets saved by the invul save) would be a very awesome addition to the list getting rid of most of our problems in one go. ;)

User avatar
Rizzle
Kor'La
Kor'La
Posts: 123

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#32 » Apr 19 2017 11:38

Great, thanks for clarifying - I don't mean to be obstinate here!
It's really helpful to be keep clear which specific issues being addressed with each batch of rules tweaks. Importantly, it should also help pin back to a clear message we can present to the design team of these issues, separately to our attempts to 'patch' them.

To your point, I fully agree that if we aim to keep Pathfinder a short-to-mid range shooty faction (currently an unoccupied niche) then they need similar protective rules to those that focused melée teams benefit from. Invulnerable save bubble + minor boost to pinning recovery (see my earlier ideas for an example) would give a bump to survivablility and mobility without feeling too strong. By eating in to the drone allocation, it also competes with pulse accelerator drones. You could get teamwide defence boost or teamwide range boost but not both - that's an interesting tradeoff.
Keeping the 'answer' on a drone makes it possible to counter by a canny opponent, too. Very appealing.

An alternate plan I could get behind would be importing the MV5 Stealth Drone from the Ghostkeel kit and having it confer a point of cover that cannot be ignored (open -> partial, partial -> full, full -> full that ignores photo visors :) ) over a 3" radius. That would lead to fewer hits (and therefore fewer pins) in a single step.

User avatar
ARC'Thunder
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 850

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#33 » Apr 19 2017 11:45

Panzer wrote:Aye they do have their advantages. Just we don't have anything from it by being able to move and use them if we are pinned/downed.
Once more, beside all the quality of life changes, I'd like to say the ONE problem we have is delivering our dakka without getting picked apart on the way.
Hence why I think a Shield drone with a invul bubble (that also prevents pinning if the hit gets saved by the invul save) would be a very awesome addition to the list getting rid of most of our problems in one go. ;)
Rizzle wrote:An alternate plan I could get behind would be importing the MV5 Stealth Drone from the Ghostkeel kit and having it confer a point of cover that cannot be ignored (open -> partial, partial -> full, full -> full that ignores photo visors :) ) over a 3" radius.

I'm not sure that creating a new unit, or making use of gear not normally available to pathfinders is either thematic, balanced, or necessary. And, for the purposes of relaying feedback to GW such suggestions as the stealth drone from the XV95 is ludicrous.

Countering our limited range by inuring ourselves to the many of the core rules of the game seems a bit heavy-handed when we could simply increase the range of our basic weapon and add a means to pin enemies at range.

Like others have pointed out, some of our faction specific gear is an alternative or side-grade to some of the core miscellaneous gear. I think we already have all the tools available to make ourselves competitive and balanced without creating entirely new gear.

I think the one argument that could be made is to give us access to camo-gear, but I'm still not convinced that the proliferation of such miscellaneous gear is not more of an issue than our own limitations. Panzer and I had briefly agreed in the previous thread that multiplying the cost of some of the gear by about 5 would help a lot. Although, much of the gear is priced on a list to list basis-and could be tailored further (for example, the red-dot sights for Scouts is more than those of the Orks).

Again, I know we're walking a fine line that borders on wishlisting, but let's keep our feedback to tweaking the things we have or what the game reasonably supports already.

BillyBones
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 111

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#34 » Apr 19 2017 11:57

I have tried to compare some weapons similar to PC and the shoota which is assault 2 and has 18'' is 24'' here with sustain 1 and +1 in short range. I would say it is actually better than bolter here.
Avenger shuriken catapult retains its range 18'' and its assault 2 is also transformed into sustain 1.
But PC while it also is assault 2 gets nothing.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#35 » Apr 19 2017 12:06

To be completely honest I still don't see the point of this thread in the first place.
Do we try to come up with house rules?
Or do we just try to find what exactly the problem is (i think we covered that well enough by now)?
Or do we actually try to collect suggestions to present GW (i can promise you, that won't work. A company wants to make such decisions on their own instead of doing what the community tells them)?

I mean it's all good and fun to discuss about the weaknesses of the Tau list in SW:A but without a purpose it's just a wishlisting thread.

Also I do think Pathfinder should stay a mid range team with some access to long ranged weaponry on their specialists so i'm against increasing the range on Carbines.

BillyBones
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 111

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#36 » Apr 19 2017 12:13

Panzer wrote: Also I do think Pathfinder should stay a mid range team with some access to long ranged weaponry on their specialists so i'm against increasing the range on Carbines.


All I'm saying is that they should have been sustain 1 at current range.

Return to “Shadow Ops Center”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest