Minervan Tank Regiment 1.6 |
|
Soren
|
Post subject: Minervan Tank Regiment 1.6  Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 2:27 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria
|
They are 250 and they will stay 250. Else the Army list also shows them up with 250.
---edited due too much information  ------
_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Evil and Chaos
|
Post subject: Minervan Tank Regiment 1.6 Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 3:28 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
|
|
Maybe we could talk about the Support slots?
Since the army has a truly huge ammount of RA4+ units, I don't think a low activation count is a terrible thing.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Soren
|
Post subject: Minervan Tank Regiment 1.6 Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:30 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria
|
It?s not being low on activations. This is a fact anyway. It?s about forced to take Warhound titans or T-bolts to get above 6 activations  . (If you take two LR Companies)
_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Evil and Chaos
|
Post subject: Minervan Tank Regiment 1.6 Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:49 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
|
|
You would suggest allowing 3 support formations per company I assume?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Soren
|
Post subject: Minervan Tank Regiment 1.6 Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:07 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria
|
Yes. Else it forces you to take you one or two SHT in addition to a LR Company, or strip any upgrades.
To get 6 Support slots you have to invest at least 1500 pts (assuming 3 SHTC) , other companies rise this even further. You will not need your 6 slots, because you are out of points first . Exeption: Fill them with cheap scouts, but there will be no possibility to popcorn like Necrons or TAU anyway. More than 9 to 10 activations will not make sense if you raise the Support formations to 3 per company.
_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
zombocom
|
Post subject: Minervan Tank Regiment 1.6 Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:05 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569
|
|
Hmm. I think the low activation count helps to balance out what is already a very strong army list. If more support slots were added it may slip of of balance.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Moscovian
|
Post subject: Minervan Tank Regiment 1.6 Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:53 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
|
|
Agreed - the point discount on the tanks is already a borderline balance issue, so adding any more flexibility to the this would push it over the top. Besides, it is refreshing to see a list that limits your options. That is the beauty of having variant lists - all of your options for Epic playing don't have to be encapsulated in one list.
_________________ author of Syncing Forward and other stories...It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Evil and Chaos
|
Post subject: Minervan Tank Regiment 1.6 Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:56 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
|
|
I think the above two posts make very good points.
I won't be changing the number of support formations per company unless playtesting shows the list to be losing a lot of games due to a lack of activations.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Soren
|
Post subject: Minervan Tank Regiment 1.6 Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:39 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria
|
Game Thursday:
Pictures maybe to come. (My friend made some, try to get them)
Minervan Steel legion vs. Biel tan Eldar: 3k.
Minervans see the side before, Eldar something like this:
- Revenants (BTS)
- Aspect Host Firedragons, Dire Avengers, Wave Serpent, autarch, Exarch
- Windrider (3 Viper)
- Windrider (3 Viper)
- Swords (2 Firestorm)
- Swords (2 Firestorm)
- Avatar
- Guardians (3 Platforms)
- Guardians (+3 wraithguard)
- Nightwings
Hopefully I have nothing missed.
To make it short.
Turn 1 was mostly some ineffective exchange of fire and positioning (with the exeption of Revenant which hit my 2. Tank company hard) Hate MW.
Turn 2: He managed to break the 2nd company early, so I missed out most of the heavy firepower on the right flank. Not counting endless failed activation rolls with my support formations (Storm troopers made not a single cm in the first three turns) Nothing deciding I think but some losses on both sides. 4+ RA is not bad if used wisely. Highlight was the Tank platoon, which shrugged off the attack from thje Avatar and then grabbed after his blitz. You should just have seen the gaze of my mate looking at the 5 tanks racing behind his lines  .
Turn 3: He managed to break some of my formations and my activation count went low. Luckily the Tank Platoon treated his rear, so he had to dispatch his precious Aspect Host to hunt them down. (Otherwise they would have ravaged my 1st Tank company) 0:0 so turn 4.
Turn 4 ended with heavy shooting, maneuvering and losses on both sides and none of us was able to claim an objective uncontested. I mostly because of running low on activations, he mostly because he lacked the power to eliminate my formations completely, as his troops suffered losses, mainly on his shooty units.
So we counted up and ended at 1250:1750 in favor of to the Eldar.
Conclusion:
Nothing spectacular (a reasopn why I don?t bother making a full report out of this) MW heavy armies are a problem (and eldar have plenty of them) but that?s nothing new.
Soren
_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Evil and Chaos
|
Post subject: Minervan Tank Regiment 1.6 Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:44 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
|
|
Thankyou very much for the report Soren.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Charad
|
Post subject: Minervan Tank Regiment 1.6 Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:58 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:59 pm
Posts: 1212
Location: Finland
|
|
That eldar list is quite a light on MW. You are playing with old rules with eldar?
_________________
Rats Keep Running...
Dark Eldar Dracon
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Soren
|
Post subject: Minervan Tank Regiment 1.6 Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:06 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria
|
I do not see Wraithguard (MW and MWFF, Revenants (8x MW4+) and Firedragons (MW and MWFF) light on MW. If you want more of them, no problem, even the SHT have MW. And you are not really restricted taking them compared to other lists.
I am not complaining, it?s just a statement ^^
We played the new ruleset for Biel Tan.
There is no difference concerning MW between old and new rules, exept Revenants are not that deadly now (but more than deadly enough).
Concerning rear armor rule you also can add lance counting as MW and they are all but not light on Lance and MW added together (Not even speaking about TK templates ).
_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Charad
|
Post subject: Minervan Tank Regiment 1.6 Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:33 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:59 pm
Posts: 1212
Location: Finland
|
|
I was wondering because swords are having two firestorms. I think Revenants are much more balanced now (even though I don't like leader rules too much). Also guardians without portals are not going to use their MW ability too much.
That is true, lance weapons hurt IG a lot. I have played a lot against original IG list and that has been maybe overall hardest list with eldar to handle.
_________________
Rats Keep Running...
Dark Eldar Dracon
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Moscovian
|
Post subject: Minervan Tank Regiment 1.6 Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:22 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
|
|
I am considering other pricing structures.
I am curious what you are considering... 1.7 I am sure is right around the corner. Were you thinking about employing a price change in the 1.7 list or waiting? (I am assuming 1.7 is what you intended for Raiders).
_________________ author of Syncing Forward and other stories...It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
