Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
Still not sure going the AMB is the better way, it turns into a AP unit more then AA which is why we added it in the first place.
seriously.... all the arguments and then this?? I'm glad you're seeing it my way at last... (even if we disagree on the stats)
Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
Running 4 lots of planes would change your list drastically and would not easily breaking formations in T3.
4 RW (1400 pts) + 4 Nephilim (1000 pts) = 2400, leaving 600 points for other formations.
I'm at a lost here. Would dropping the rockets appease you and Ginger? My hands are pretty tied while trying to match stats and hold consistency. The AMB will match whatever Vaaish wants to do, he started the stat line and I'm willing to match it, I have no fight in what the stats are. The Twin Lascannon matches the current stats, unless you can find me another Twin Lascannon stat that isn't 45cm AT4/AA4 I think were stuck with it, hence the move to keep the AMB instead the Twin Las where in theory the stats can change. As for Heavy Bolters they have both 15cm and 30cm in lists. Considering this fighter is a interceptor I figure the 30cm was more suited then the 15cm found on larger AC as a additional piece instead of the main AA armament.
I've been over and over the arguments why stats should be flexible across different units, would you (the layman) expect to wield a samurai sword as well as a samurai? the weapon is the same, the use is different.... the lascannons on the marine landing craft have no AA value so there is plenty of precedent to make application-specific, game balance calls on stats.... hell if it sets your OCD off too much call it a 'nephilim lascannon' and have it at 30cm with AT4+/AA5+ and you're golden
Quote:
Fair point with the Preds. I was thinking last night that maybe make the Executioner Preds as upgrades for XX points. Leaving Annihilator, Destructor and Vindicators in the Core option. I'll have a think on this.
good stuff, I think 4 pred executioners with HB sponsons for 300 points would be acceptable
Quote:
First, what is faff?
Indeed, I did not think they were any other lists as DA had them first and then IF. I consented to match the IF previously for consistency even tho I felt they didn't represent Assault Termies but more Thunder Hammers as the IF list called them. I'll revert back and once were Approved its something we can try testing in conjunction with other AC's.
faff = fiddle/mess with
I think if you really want to give them more extra macro attacks, you need to start charging extra points.... given how potent the extra 2 attacks are, I'd suggest 50 points for a pair at a minimum, you pay that for a character with 1 extra MW and an ability, I think it's fair to start at 50pts
Quote:
I'm grateful for your playtesting and comments, but when you repeat the same issues. I have explain my concerns with the planes and on many occasions have pointed out where I'm willing to adjust. I then get more demands even to areas I agree we can change like points and formation sizes. I thought your report was valuable regardless of planes discussions.
As to Playtesting, I have mentioned before but I'll do so again. Currently I'm unable to play because 1) My collection is in storage. 2) Between working and finding a new place to move to I don't have time really. 3) The closest gamers, to the best of my knowledge, are 75 miles away if not farther. But if you have a way to protect my models and store them that I can call at a moment notice with a opponent then I might get a game in.
I can only call it as I see it, I've been playing epic most weeks for the last 3 years, I've played in quite a few tournaments, now I'm not claiming to be a wargaming savant, but I'm reasonably experienced now and certain things just jump out at you as potentially problematic, the planes just look too strong on a per-plane basis with those stats, I get you want to harmonise stats, I've also explained why that is
your perogative and not set in stone, and even given multiple examples why you're not bound by other lists... I've suggested explanations giving you an 'out' if you wanted to change the stats, and I've given real world examples of identical weapons performing differently in different applications.... so far nobody has given any reason why they want to harmonise stats except 'because' and I'm sorry, but that kind of answer didn't work on me as a 5-year old and it certainly doesn't hold water now.... the AMB stats aren't even set in stone yet.... it's not like they're coming from a list which has been approved for 5 years.....
I wrote the Imperial fists list and the first few times I played it, it did not remotely play how I expected... hence why I think it's important for the AC to try to get games in with their list, both as a user AND an opponent, I get that you're not able to play often atm, but that really should mean that you need to listen more to those of us that do.... you're insisting on playtests as the only source of valid feedback, but then adjusting/writing the list on theory alone... surely you have to see how strange that seems?
Quote:
I feel I might have sensed a wee bit of barbed or jaggedness in your post.
little bit, and I apologise for that, I'm sure you're feeling as frustrated as I am....
Quote:
I hope not but I'm just trying to build a NetEA list that holds true to the DA and tries to keep consistency with other NetEA units and weapons.
and I totally dig that, I like the theme of the list, its a nice change from 'codex plus chapter specific toys' I'm the IF AC, so I can totally get on board with that style of list development
In Summary:
-personally I see no issue re-jigging stats of weapons from unit to unit to balance the game, it's
such an easy justification
-I agree with Ulrik that 40k should NOT be the tail wagging the dog (great analogy) and we should stat things up for their expected role using 40k as a set of generic guidelines at most
-I think the nephilim should be included, just not in its current form, right now as ulrik says, it's just better than the tbolt at everything and that's not on.... with the various pred flavours and additional land raiders, I really don't think the DA
need a strong ground attack craft, the hole they need to plug is the air dominance fighter
-Assault termies should either be the thunderhammer variant (CC2+ EA+1) OR lightning claws (CC3+ EA+2 + 50 points for a pair
minimum)
-ravenwing need to lose scout.... 8 stands of 35cm move scouts with ATSKNF is really too good, you can string them out and block off the entire board.... coupled with the planes, your opponent isn't going to want to push forwards anyway and then when they do they have to negotiate screens of scouts, if you want them to garrison, give them a vanguard rule which allows them to do that, just drop scout as right now it's too abusable
apologies for the long post
![:{[]](./images/smilies/headbang.gif "Headbang")
