frogbear wrote:
Dobbsy, you played it against me and I disagreed with it. Does that not count?
Of course it does mate, but out of three people to play against the current list (with actual feedback) only you have voiced any concern so far. That's no reason to change it wholesale in my books and if I were to change the list everytime a single person voices an issue the list will never be finished and, as I said, my experience with them doesn't show your issue is well-founded so far. Sorry. From our game, what you saw from the Swiftclaws as perhaps OTT, I saw as a reasonable representation that wasn't OTT. My second game confirmed they aren't broken with a +1 to double given all their other negatives.
In any case, once I play/see more games I may see it confirmed either way with more conviction.
frogbear wrote:
It is not in the flavour. Simply put, they have no reason for the +1 on a double other than to get past the 2+ initiative. There is no fluff and the whole arguement for it sounds like GW - this is the latest codex and they are the best.
I respectfully disagree. It's not there to "get past" anything and it's actually following a pattern/feel from all the SW codeces I have. In the very least, it promotes support movements and shows they want to be in the fight.
frogbear wrote:
The armies that you have taken also do not use the Space Wolves strengths (regardless of the rule). Try some of the ones I posted on Wargamer and placed below to see how this army get's more 'bang for it buck'
I will try the lists for sure. Until that confirms what you're saying, the list will remain as is for now.
frogbear wrote:
It is not so much as broken, it is just unnecessary. You have four people telling you this on the thread. What you do with the feedback is your choice I guess.
Again, I don't see it as unnecessary and I've given the reasons for it. Out of those four people, only one has played against the list and while I'm aware a lot list design is theory hammering it's not enough.
frogbear wrote:
At some point it is going to go before a trial period of acceptance. You will just have the same points come up at that time as well. Why not test it with less rules to find out whether it is needed?
You have said it yourself, you need play tests. It makes sense to play test without this +1 to double than to test with it otherwise you will never see whether it is required or not.
Without anyone playtesting it I won't know that for sure will I?
However, the problem is that where you feel it's not required, I do - for all the above reasons I've mentioned.
Look, I'm not being bloody-minded. I
am listening, and I'm very much aware of your concerns but so far the arguments aren't winning me over to change right now. There's not enough evidence to back up your argument for change and what little I have from my own experience doesn't support your view.
