Wow- lots of good comments so far.
C'tan critical change - DONE
...is supported by Corey and most everyone. Even though personal experience hasn't shown it to be a problem for some I think we're all open enough to understand the issues. Consider that change solid.
----
Monolith formations - PROPOSED, STRONGLY SUPPORTED
Corey mentioned supporting a minimum formation size for the Monoliths although he didn't comment directly on the proposals we hammered out here on the forum. And, yes, the proposal is for both formations to be allowed.
I think we really need to look at the point structure, however, for the two formations. The current pricing was built around the idea of inhibiting popcorn armies: you could make them but it would cost you. The original cost of the Monolith was 75 per unit and the cost of the Obelisk was 50 points. Obviously attaching an Obelisk to a Monolith formation has a single function - to absorb hits and BMs. Their other function as a fast attack unit is nerfed by the slow moving Monolith, so that is why the cost was reduced to 35 per additional Obelisk. But let's just look at this from the perspective of the original prices.
3 x 75 points = 225 points for three Monoliths which IMO is underpriced so 250 is not too far off the mark. 250 for three units is something seen in other lists so the cost has a general precedent. It is also very close to the current pricing of 255 so I'd say leave it as is.
75 + 50 + 50 = 175 for one Monolith and two Obelisks. That price also is seen in other lists (take the Nightspinners, 3 for 175). It is 20 points cheaper than the current price but this may not be an issue. Gone will be the single Monoliths and the pricing disparity will make more sense (175 and 250).
Yes, the list will still have opportunities for cheap formations, but so does almost every list out there (Orks, Eldar, Space Marines, etc.). I'm coming around to the idea this is these are the prices we need to set.
-----
Pylon- PROPOSED, STRONGLY SUPPORTED
So I get the impression 90cm is looking like a good meeting of the minds. Most people seem to be inclined toward TK(1), correct?
-----
Wraiths IN DISCUSSION, STRONGLY SUPPORTED
This is one of those changes that -sorry, Corey- I warned against. Despite being cool I recommended to Corey that a change like this so late in the game was a bad move. He leaned too far in the direction of nerfing the unit and the end result is a unit and formation that are underpowered. Going back to how the Wraiths functioned in older lists may be the way to go although I can't say I like that idea for reasons I am having a difficult time articulating. It certainly needs a change and the two attacks at 4+ seem like one way to go. They used to have two attacks at 3+ with no First Strike, so I'd be fine with this too, although I agree the 4+, EA, FS matches the fluff better.
-----
Abattoir changes, IN DISCUSSION, MILDLY SUPPORTED
Adding an extra 1-2 DC has been suggested for the Abattoir before and rejected, largely because this thing is a killing machine once it does make contact.
I'd like to know how many people have actually played with the Abattoir unit, how many times, and what your experience has been. To me it is just one of those units that will not fit into EVERY list - it is a niche war engine. Games where you won't find it often used are 3000 point tournament games or boards where you play lengthwise. Tournament games in the 4000-5000 point range IMO really show the unit's utility since it has more targets and more utility as a solid portal. I just don't see it needing a change, but by all means post some of your experiences.
-----
Deceiver change to BM only, PROPOSED, MILDLY SUPPORTED
I know this might not make it in but it does match the fluff a heck of a lot better than the current armament, would be devastating to broken formations, and would require a very small one line special rule in the datafax. If it didn't make it in I wouldn't be heart-broken over it (Corey already crushed my idea over a year ago so I am over it... Sorta...
) I only mentioned it because the Deceiver was brought up as a unit that is potentially overpowered (which I agree it is slightly over-gunned) and this would be a nerf. It would also give the Deceiver a special purpose on the board.
Currently it has 6BP: 1 Extra Template, 1 Extra Blast Marker, hits on an AP4+/AT5+ Disrupt
Proposal is for 8BP: 2 Extra Templates, 1 Extra Blast Marker, hits on an AP4+/AT5+ Disrupt
Note: When shooting, the unit lays only BMs on successful hit (no casualties removed).-----
Variable Strategy Rating being removed. PROPOSED, MODERATELY SUPPORTED
I know for a fact Corey read the arguments against it and I am sure he will post here soon (the boards being up and down are just not working with his schedule unfortunately). I think there are good arguments for and against it, but in the end one group of people are going to feel disenfranchised.
My question to anyone who thinks that the variable SR needs to go: with the changes above, don't you think that will be more than enough to address the small balance issues the list has?
Leave it at AA4+ to mirror the ground shot. Dunno if the Pylon should cost less than 200 after these changes...
