Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 6
  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Armoured Regiment 1.4
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.4
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:20 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

(Hena @ Jun. 14 2007,19:14)
QUOTE
Few more things.

Stormhammer. This is long OOP tank. And as such should be in the appendix side of the list. Or used 'Counts As' Stormsword :).

A single OOP tank in the whole list is fine by me... there are plenty of people who want to use their Stormhammers.


175 per single super heavy? Wasn't that a typo.


Uhm, i guess. :)

I'd drop the wolfs cost to 250 as that small point variations are not very friendly considering there isn't anything else with <25 points cost.

Look at all those Leman Russ variants...

Pinpoint reaver for 575? Are you sure about that ... I'd put 600 at least.

I am pretty confident that's a good price for it, but playtesting would be appreciated! :D

Should there be a restriction that each upgrades can be taken only once?


Maybe...




_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moose Cloud
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.4
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 10:38 pm
Posts: 16
Hi there.

I have to say that both the thunderer and the demolisher still seem a little underpriced especially when compared to the salamander company. The conquerer also still needs something other than 5cm movement on a regular russ.

I don't like the idea of the increased flexibility of sponson options for all the russ. Some with and some without is fine but the unprecedented flexibility would make the formation and the list very difficult to balance correctly.

EDIT: I don't think TK is the way to go with the destroyer. I really liked the sniper ability. With TK it is just never going to be used by anyone who owns a shadowsword. The sniper ability was unique and interesting and was balanced by the cost of the tank and the limited ways in which it could be fielded. /EDIT

Also on the question of titans there seems no justification for various variants that are denied SL.

Perhaps these should be kept as optional rules if you want this list to be included in tournaments and such? Similar standpoint on the extra forgeworld airforce. There doesn't seem to be any justification for these additions to the list when the steel legion don't get them.

I'm all for using these in friendly games but their inclusion makes the list seem less official.

Cheers guys, the list is looking great!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.4
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I have to say that both the thunderer and the demolisher still seem a little underpriced especially when compared to the salamander company.


I think it's more the case that the Salamander Company is quite overpriced.

Trust me, from my playtests I've found that Thunderers especially are pretty rubbish.


The conquerer also still needs something other than 5cm movement on a regular russ.

The Conqueror has +10cm over a regular Leman Russ.


I don't like the idea of the increased flexibility of sponson options for all the russ. Some with and some without is fine but the unprecedented flexibility would make the formation and the list very difficult to balance correctly.

I'm still very much mulling on this one.



EDIT: I don't think TK is the way to go with the destroyer. I really liked the sniper ability. With TK it is just never going to be used by anyone who owns a shadowsword. The sniper ability was unique and interesting and was balanced by the cost of the tank and the limited ways in which it could be fielded.

And it was almost universally hated.

While I liked in in some regards, gamewise it turned out to be overpowered, being able to snipe HQ transports at will.

TK(1), AT4+ will stay, for now.

And yeah, Shadowswords do more damage for less points, but they're undercosted to begin with.


Also on the question of titans there seems no justification for various variants that are denied SL.

Fluff justification: This is an armoured force, and they should get the heaviest of high-tech armour!

In-game justification: They're not overpowered.

Out of game justification: There is no reason for these Titans not to be allowed in the Steel Legion too. The only reason they're not is internal profit-politics within GW, not game balance.


Perhaps these should be kept as optional rules if you want this list to be included in tournaments and such?

I'd rather the FW Titans be given 'official' rules by the ERC rules review this year, but that's a debate for another week.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moose Cloud
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.4
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 10:38 pm
Posts: 16
I think it's more the case that the Salamander Company is quite overpriced.

Trust me, from my playtests I've found that Thunderers especially are pretty rubbish.


Although they only have one role it is one that is fairly easy to get the most out of. I agree that the salamanders are overpriced but I'm still seriously worried about 10 thunderers for 400. To be honest even the 3 tank upgrade is nasty.

I would suggest a 5 point hike for the demolishers as at 60 they are a bargain.

While I liked in in some regards, gamewise it turned out to be overpowered, being able to snipe HQ transports at will.

TK(1), AT4+ will stay, for now.

And yeah, Shadowswords do more damage for less points, but they're undercosted to begin with.

I think this is a real shame. I agree that it is particularly nasty against command units in transports but TK just doesn't capture the destroyers abilities in my mind. It also means that it will never be used at its current cost but can't really be reduced without making the executioner pointless. I'll have to give this one some thought.

My bad on the conquerers. Still not sure they're worth it but I'll have another look.

Fluff justification: This is an armoured force, and they should get the heaviest of high-tech armour!

I don't agree with this statement. Titans are attached to guard units for individual engagements or campaigns. There is no reason why they should have more titans available to them than mechanised infantry.

I suppose it's not a huge issue and it is nice to get to use the pretty forgeworld models but it makes the list seem like fan rules and blatantly disregards one of the standard practiced of EA which is to not allow weapon variant titans in the main lists.

I suppose it's not a massive issue but I personally think that the new fan driven lists should be written in the same style as the original lists if the game is to remain the one that I enjoy playing now. The simplicity of epic is one of the key appeals of the game and I don't see any justification for adding new titan variants to this list other than some people's desire to see more titans.

I don't have a problem with that on a fundamental level but the further these fan lists stray from the official lists the less likely they are to become accepted as canon amongst gamers who do not frequent these sites.

Moose
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moose Cloud
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.4
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:05 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 10:38 pm
Posts: 16
More thoughts on the thunderer- make it FF5+.

This could be justified by it losing sponsons and would make their short range more of a disadvantage. I think this might actually tip things for me although with reinforced armour they would still be quite nasty in an assault.

My other idea would just be to bump them up by 5 points each.

I'd also consider dropping the conquerer by at least 5 points. I honestly don't see any situation where I'd want to use a company of them. They would be useful for attacking weak armour/ broken formations(as is described in their background text)  in smaller formations of 5 or 6 tanks. A smaller support formation tank unit seems to be missing from this list and seems like a good place for conquerers to me.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.4
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:48 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

(Moose Cloud @ Jun. 15 2007,00:05)
QUOTE
More thoughts on the thunderer- make it FF5+.

This could be justified by it losing sponsons and would make their short range more of a disadvantage. I think this might actually tip things for me although with reinforced armour they would still be quite nasty in an assault.

I thought I'd already made it FF5+ actually... that's what I've been playtesting it with and it should have had that all along.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.4
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:50 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Plus, yeah, looks like the Titan / Navy variants should go, this isn't the place to pimp them. :)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
OracleBoyd
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.4
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:11 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:59 pm
Posts: 53
Location: St. Louis
Hi,

I love this list overall, and hope it eventually becomes turny legal if not "official".  I'd really like to put together a Tanks and Stormtroopers army without having to sacrifice a Supreme Commander.

A couple of questions:

1.  Why the different version of the Vulture for this list?  They might as well be Valkyrie formations with the change to Rocket pods.

2.  The current pricing and limitations on the Tank formation seems strange.  A "standard"  IG tank formation costs 40 points less in this list.  Why the limitation on "rare" units?  I remember seeing fluff somewhere that some Regiments fielded entirely Executioners...

Thanks!

_________________
- OracleBoyd
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.4
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
1.  Why the different version of the Vulture for this list?  They might as well be Valkyrie formations with the change to Rocket pods.


Chalk it up to a typo, they'll be changing to normal Vultures in the next list, cheers!


2.  The current pricing and limitations on the Tank formation seems strange.  A "standard"  IG tank formation costs 40 points less in this list.

Quite intentional, and for the moment the prices will stay.

Why the limitation on "rare" units?  I remember seeing fluff somewhere that some Regiments fielded entirely Executioners...

Those Regiments would be Skittarii Tech-Guard, not your run of the mill Tank Regiments. This list represents the forces available to an 'average' Imperial Guard Tank Regiment.

One qualifier I'll add to that is that Thunderers might be changed to 'Rare' status in the next version of the list.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.4
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:36 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
E&C,

I wasn't going to say anything, but now that you've mentioned pulling some of the air/titan variants, I'd have to say 'good idea'.  As for the spontons, I'm a little nervous about the list construction.  It seems like it will make for too many complications.  It would be nice if somebody could just pick up the list a run with it (which would be unlikely with the extra choices).

Moosecloud, I personally loved the sniper idea, but after some discussion on the matter I was convinced otherwise.  E&C's concerns are valid.  My only other thoughts for the Executioner would be to make them their own formation and scouts so that they could be garrisoned (therefore would be much like sniper tanks set up waiting for the enemy to approach).  I'm not sure how popular of an idea that would be and E&C seemed hesitant to separate them out.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.4
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Well it seems to be overlooked, so i post it again: :)

Oh and whats the deal with the Leman Russ Executioners Plasma Destroyer being MW? In WH40k it has the same stats as a Plasma Cannon but with increased range (56" instead of  36"). So shouldn't it be 60cm AP4+/AT4+? If Slow Firing or not is debatable.





_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Armoured Regiment 1.4
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

(BlackLegion @ Jun. 15 2007,14:43)
QUOTE
Well it seems to be overlooked, so i post it again: :)

Oh and whats the deal with the Leman Russ Executioners Plasma Destroyer being MW? In WH40k it has the same stats as a Plamsa Cannon but with increased range (56" instead of  36"). So shouldn't it be 60cm AP4+/AT4+? If Slow Firing or not is debatable.

I havn't forgotten it and it's on my list of stuff to mull. :)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 6
  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net