We are noting the differences that this size makes and are formulating what we could call EPIC: Apocolypse. Things like the Blitzkrieg Objective location and Take and Hold change a bit from the little 3,000 pt games. Tis a work in progress on our way to the 40,000 points per side game.

Regardless of game size tho, there are way too many adjectives piled onto that 25 point stand.

_________________
~Laserwolf

Yes, we know, the game was intended to be played in the 2000-5000 points range...

I agree with lsrwolf that the rough riders are an incredibly effective unit and a steal at 150pts. They are quite fragile when coming under fire and don't fare to well in assaults either against any significant opposition, but they have their uses. I mostly use them to screen my artillery companies in the rear against teleporters and air assaults.



Now, this part I really don't understand. We are using the same restrictions in army construction. No more than 1/3 of total points on war engines/aircraft and restrictions on the number of support formations limited to quantity of company formations, etc. We still restrict the armies to their "one only" things, Deathstrike missiles for the IG and Avatar for the eldar, spacecraft for both. Sure, at 26,000+ points I have a whole lot more of everything, but so does the Eldar player (lsrwolf). We have scaled the battlefield up to 16' x 12' (I believe). Why does using more points than 5,000 all of a sudden make the army lists unbalanced against each other?

One example taken from your own post is because



at 3000 pts the IG has spent 6.6% of his points on a Deathstrike which gives him good anti-Titan ability. At 26,000 points he has spent 0.8% of his points on a Deathstrike, which gives him very poor anti-Titan ability because there are now likely to be 9 times as many titans roaming the field. The balance has changed dramatically.
Then because of all the extremely powerful titans deployed, the value of a cheap scout screen (that will be just as dead as a much more expensive formation the moment a tian assaults it) also goes up dramatically, making fairly average units like Rough Riders seem extremely good value.

There are dozens more examples of how scaling up the size changes the balance of the game until you reach a point size where you want nothing but Manticores and scout screens, which is why people are resistant to changing unit costs based on reports from abnormally large matches.

Does that help make it clearer?

Sure, if I agreed with you. But seriously, I understand what you are explaining, but as of yet I remain unconvinced with the logic of it.



But I also have spent more points on Shawdowswords, and Leman Russ companies which are the far better titan hunter than the Deathstrike. And other titans. It might be a matter of tastes, but I would rarely fire a Deathstrike at an Eldar titan. Why have the risk of your one shot being negated by a 2/3s chance of the holofield save?



The other player also has a whole lot more formations that can blow that sceening unit away leaving the titan to advance into an engage action.

At this point I still believe that lists are more or less balanced no matter what points level you are using. I have a whole lot more to play with, but so does your opponent. There might be some small balance issues, but enough that my 27,000 pt IG is unbalnced against a 27,000pt Eldar army, or vice versa? Now, if you make the wrong choices in your army composition? But that is true at any level of points.

So Matt, you believe it would be more balanced if we had played 5 x 5,000 pt forces each? Allowing the Guard to have 10 Deathstrikes, the Eldar to have 5 Avatars and us both to have 5 Spacecraft bombardments?

_________________
~Laserwolf

Yes, we know, the game was intended to be played in the 2000-5000 points range...

As others have said the game is designed to balance at between 2000 - 5000 points. The reasons for this is that the game is designed to be played in less than 3 hours on a 6' x 4' table, and is tested to be so. Pushing to such high levels of points will always skew the relative cost of a support formation.

With 4 times the points you really want 4 times the space, otherwise you loose the manoeuvre element of epic which is important. Your other option would be to drop both the coherency of formations to say 2cm and the scouts to 5cm and called intermingled at maybe 8cm. ZOC's should be reduced to match. This may have the effect of creating more space in the game.

Having said all that if you want to play the game big go for it, come up with point values for formation that work for you. However please realise that when the majority of players talk about units and formations, we are playing within the 2K - 5K size on a 6' x 4'.

But I also have spent more points on Shawdowswords, and Leman Russ companies which are the far better titan hunter than the Deathstrike. And other titans. It might be a matter of tastes, but I would rarely fire a Deathstrike at an Eldar titan. Why have the risk of your one shot being negated by a 2/3s chance of the holofield save?


I thought this rule played as a roll to hit, then the D6 followed by the resulting D6 amount of hits against the Holofields ?

Nope, you roll the holofield save before determining the amount of damage taken.

We have 8x that area. Plenty of room for the army size.

Curious, why would you increase the intermingle range, but decrease all the others?

_________________
~Laserwolf

Yes, we know, the game was intended to be played in the 2000-5000 points range...

Argh! Huge post gone!



0-1 limits are bad because of this. They tend to mask the fact that the unit is unbalanced in some way, and they don't allow the use of the unit to scale linearly.

Artillery are a great example of a unit that is more effective at larger game sizes. I take two batteries at 3k. An opponent can neutralize them with counterbattery fire by winning the Strategy roll and retaining. That's not possoble at 26k. Scaling up, I'd have 18 batteries at that points level. At least 8 would get through.

An army composed entirely of Artillery would be even worse. 26k allows an army of 25 Companies with Hydras, 24 Batteries, and 25 Sentinel Squadrons (though in reality you wouldn't need al those Sentinels; they provide 20m of screen). How on earth would you fight that starting at 10-12 feet away?

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

My bad, intermingling should come down too!

I will restate that if this scale of game works for you go for it, just don't be surprised if most players comments don't match your experience.

Oh, and post photos. I'd love to see such a big game on the table

iirc, the 0-1 limit is Per 5000pts anyway. so a 25000pt game could indeed have 5 spaceships a side, but you're unlikely to get them all off given the unlikelyhood of the game lasting 5 turns (and thats assuming your opponent doesnt have ANY ships at all)

it is useful for supreme commanders and death/fire/warpstrikes though


[edit]hmm, thats odd, i cant find that rule anywhere. pretty sure i didnt imagine it though, maybe its from one of the other editions?[/edit]

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

Drive closer and hit them with my sword!

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

On a normal board, the enemy can start within ~100cm of artillery. Several forces have ground units that can attack up to 120cm away and there are a variety of deepstrike options that can quickly be supported by the rest of the forces. They are a threat out of the gate because they can potentially hit the artillery before they have an opportunity to fire. On a larger board artillery has a much greater ability to hit ground forces before they can close. Not only can they not directly attack the arty, enemy forces cannot even reasonably support a deepstrike option without being exposed to the artillery fire for some time.

Conversely, any non-deepstrike close quarter forces are going to be at a great disadvantage. Even with really fast moves, the enemy simply has a lot of time to prepare for an assault and chip away as the forces close.

So, with respect to what you guys are discussing...

Eldar, with relatively few deepstrike options (light transport aircraft, weak teleport options, the Storm Serpent's de facto deepstrike abilities evaporate on such a large board) and generally short range weapons are going to be at a serious disadvantage across a large board. The only element they have that would increase in that environment might be airpower, but even then, the need to cover so much area will reduce the effectiveness of Firestorms and ancillary AA that normally contribute strongly to Eldar air dominance.

Overall, the Eldar lose potency.

IG are going to be able to maximize their "stand and deliver" elements to great effect. Screening elements (like the Rough Riders in question) gain a lot of utility when the enemy has to cover 180-240cmcm to reach them instead of 100cm. The other army elements will soften up anything charging towards the arty before the screen has to engage. Any deepstrike element which bypasses that huge threat area will be unsupported, allowing the screening units to counterattack with impunity, not worrying about other threats.

Overall, the IG gain potency.

That adds up to big differences in overall balance.