|
In its own thread by popular demand. Well, 2 people I think asked. This is what i sent off to Jervis/ERC via fanatic.
>>0cm MOVE UNITS
Q. Can transported units with a move of zero set up 5cm away when disembarking?
A. Yes they can.
Q. If a formation of three guns has the centre gun destroyed and the unit fails to rally (if they get the chance) is it removed after the next activation movement phase (broken unit, two stands, one stand removed blast marker kills other stand).
A. Yes, life can be short in a Siege regiment!
>>FORTIFICATIONS AND EMPLACEMENTS
Q. What is a fortified position?
A. In the rules this term refers only to the 'fortified positions' you buy from the fortified positions entry on the army list.
Q. Do you have to deploy all of a fortified position (i.e. must I deploy all bunkers, barbed wire etc that I buy)?
A. No, not all of a position has to be deployed.
Q. Do they work against fire from all directions?
A. Yes, all directions.
Q. Do you have to deploy the gun emplacements that can come with artillery and flak formations immediately after objectives as with all other fortified positions?
A. No, fortifications that come as part of a formation (e.g. for Howitzers) are deployed with the rest of the formation.
Q. For razor wire, only length is given. How broad can a base holding razor wire be?
A. Regardless of width assume it is under 5cm (i.e. can be crossed in one 'cautious' move as described in 1.8.1).
Q. Are a set of emplacement upgrades part of the formation they are upgrading? (So implications for coherency and similar.)
A. No (they are terrain features not combat units), but they must be deployed within coherency distance of a unit from the formation when they are set up.
Q. Do units with emplacement upgrades have to deploy in them?
A. No they do not, but they must be deployed within coherency distance of the formation they have been purchased for.
Q. Do fortifications (especially bunkers, but also trenches/siege lines) block LOF?
A. No - such things are designed to be unobtrusive and if properly constructed mostly below ground!
Q. If a vehicle attacks a unit in a trench in CC does the fact it has attacked me in CC mean it has to take a test?
A. If the vehicle contacts part of the stand that is within cover it has to take a dangerous terrain test, if it contacts a part of the stand that is not within cover (say the unit is half within a wood) it would not and finally if the stand were within a bunker, building or other feature impassable to the vehicle it would not be able to enter CC at all.
Q. Do you roll dangerous terrain tests for going over your own barbed wire?
A. Yes
Q. How do Siegemaster fortifications contribute to an opponents VP total, if at all?
A. No VPs are awarded in any way for them
>>SAPPERS
Q. How are sappers added as upgrade for purposes of victory points and establishing the BTS goal?
A. Each sapper unit adds 30 points to a formations value. The sappers are counted in all ways as part of the formation they are added to.
Errata
Page 73
Change ?Siege Regiment Support Formations? heading to ?Siege Regiment Company Upgrades?. (The first heading - the one with the 's'.)
Suggested errata (slight rules change/simplification)
Page 73 (under the entry for sappers) change
?The units may be split up and added to one or more Infantry Companies in the army, or fielded as a single formation in their own right.?
To
?The units may be split up and added to one or more Companies in the army, or fielded as a single formation in their own right.?
(Reasoning - well, its simpler and if you really want to attach to the SC or an artillary company, go for it!)
Based upon playtesting, comments and then some further playtesting plus some highly competitive tournament play (I had Tiny Tim scheme for years ? no exaggeration ? trying to figure out a way to beat the siegers) it hasn?t been hard to come to the conclusion that the army is, to my eternal shame, overpowered (I?ve lost two games total with it for one and theres no way I deserve that level of success).
Though it has glaring weaknesses ? troops are poor, it army maneuvers very badly and it is a sitting duck for ?deep striking? attacks, especially the move zero units ? its strengths overwhelm all but the most ?optimised? of lists (or a Tau/Chaos ignore cover force!).
These strengths ? or rather in this context problems ? are fairly simple. The low formation cost coupled with high survivability when sitting on objectives in fortifications means it has a lot of activations and the individual units poorness means you can get a lot of them (leading to an associated problem that at 5000 points you can?t fit the army on a 8x4 table and that even at low points it takes an eternity to set up).
Then of course there are a few minor issues. These link mainly to the fact the army is the slowest in the game and any changes shouldn?t make it get worse. Also in terms of play it does exactly what it should (sits still in fortifications and can?t shoot much with the limits on support meaning it will always be an infantry based force) and I?d hate to see this change.
Based on the above and numerous different ideas the best way I can see of knocking the power down is to increase the cost of the infantry companies. Due to the army structure this scales at every level from 2000 to 5000 points bringing a uniform decrease in activations and unit count. It also encourages sitting in the bunkers until the right moment as you really do die in droves and break in a second outside them.
To make sure the firepower and mobility doesn?t drop to far there are a couple of minor tweaks to other units and I?ve tried to make sappers make a bit more sense. Also I?ve tried to address the artillery battery/artillery company balance in a way that isn?t points related as the relative advantages/disadvantages of each I think are easily handled.
Alongside this I?ve gone over the FAQ with a fine toothed comb and I think it is now nailed down and finally all the neat siege ideas that have come up during development, playtesting, publication and discussion have been made into a ?directors cut? houserules list (which is if anything more balanced than the following list, but obviously I am biased).
In brief here are my recommendations.
Regimental HQ > +75 points.
Infantry Companies > +50 points.
Hellhounds > -25 points.
Snipers > 1-2 units per upgrade, 25 points each.
Artillery Battery > no emplacements.
Flak > -25 points.
Artillery Company > -25 points, no transports.
Sappers > add Small Arms ignore cover, Walker.
Commisars > one per 450 points.
Marauders get fixed by rules review please.
Here is a formation-by-formation breakdown of the army.
Infantry Company
The most numerous part of the army, pretty poor assault wise but normally in cover or reinforced for attacking roles. It breaks faster than Guard in the open due to smaller unit size but the fortifications mean it can have great stationary staying power.
In my opinion the Infantry Company is the key problem for the army.
Its price distorts the cost the upgrades. For instance support guns for 75 points are a good buy - but for less than the cost of 6 guns I get 10 more infantry and 2 more support slots.
Their formation size shouldn't be touched as they sit in cover so upping their size would make them disproportionately hard. Their equipment is appropriately bad (heavy stubbers? Ye Gods!). But they are the gateway unit for other formations, so if their cost goes up the number of activations and units in the army falls.
The fix of increased cost here is the ideal one as it is present in nigh on the same percentage throughout the possible range of GT point values.
Recommendation - Increase the cost of the infantry company to 175 points.
Regimental HQ
The Regimental HQ in a siege army has a strange problem - it is a damn big bullseye. It has a unique rule that means it is a BTS in addition to the highest costing formation. Gives you two choices - hide or tool up to be the only BTS and assault. I shift between the two options depending on how I feel. All the advantages/disadvantages of the infantry companies apply here as well.
I think a higher points boost is needed here to reflect the effectiveness of the SC re-roll and a further reduction in small games as siege forces can be very hard to combat unless you happen to have exactly the right tools (being compulsory means it is the one unit you can guaranty will always be used).
Recommendation - Increase the cost of the Regimental HQ to 225 points.
Infantry platoon.
No change. Now an infantry company costs more reinforcing and using it aggressively is a more attractive option.
Thudd Guns and Rapiers.
Personally I think the Thudd Gun has a slight edge now, but other siege players think differently. I would too if I played more armour heavy forces. At 75 points they are slightly unatractive as compared to simply buying more infantry companies but with the increase in price the balance shifts.
Hellhounds and Griffons
Suffer by being AT targets attached to infantry formations so are somewhat rare. Also stop you garrisoning. A cut of 25 points for the hellhounds is the most that can be done. Though I love the idea of flame tanks assaulting enemy trenches and accompanying men leaving their bunkers any other changes increase the utility of griffons (leaving aside why are these mechanized artillery guns even in this army list) which work quite well as a second line of BP generators, especially when stuck in emplacements behind something that blocks LOS. Both these options are better dealt with in the ?directors cut? force list.
Recommendation - Hellhound upgrade costs 125 points.
Snipers
I have lots, as does anyone buying epic guardsman. They just aren't taken much despite being fairly priced. Everyone often has a spare 25 points - so to get this unit out more?
Recommendation - Sniper Upgrade becomes 1-2 snipers for 25 points each.
Artillery Company
Undeniably powerful (it is 9 stripped down artillery guns ready to fire) it does have disadvantages. It is normally the BTS target. This is typically gotten round by using transports instead of emplacements and deploying the formation in cover (no 5+ save but still the ?1 to hit). At 18 strong it is hard to wipe out and the surviving transports can always run. Emplacing seems far more fitting for such a large concentration of guns but then it ironically becomes more vulnerable, losing the numbers from the transports and being wiped out if it loses an assault. Finally at the same cost as 3 artillery batteries if you have the support slots why not up your activations and lower your vulnerabilities?
All this has in my experience made the grand battery far less common than it should be.
I think the combination of a slight points drop to make more attractive against the batteries option, combined with removing the option for transports to make it more vulnerable in the GT scenario setting (I rarely encounter at tournaments armies without deep strike options ? be they air assaulters, fast units like warhounds or simply artillery of their own) balance the formation amongst the other support options.
Recommendation - Artillery Company becomes 425 points and loses the transports option.
Artillery Batteries
Ah yes, the best formation in my view. Cheap, high firepower, invariably entrenched and so difficult to deal with (what long range artillery needs to move anyway?). 3 batteries have more firepower than the company (well, can attack different formations and do 1 more blast marker). Oh course they have no secondary weapons, are LV and lack armour but who needs secondary weapons at the back and emplacements deal with the other problems. The biggest problem is the ever pressing support formation limits in the army. I think if it could be made more vulnerable and therefore less of a sure thing, combined with a slightly more attractive artillery company it would be fine. How to do that? Background wise I can well imagine these small gun formations have recently arrived at the front or are prepped to follow the advance. Losing the entrenchments and having to take transports lowers the survivability enough to balance the formation (to the extent that one player informed me they would rather use emplaced griffons).
Recommendation ? Artillery Battery loses the entrenchments option.
Roughriders
I have always thought in the Steel Legion list reckon these chaps are a little too hot in attacks and this has been discussed and played with at length in general for Guard.
Recent evidence and rules revelations about mounted troops and fortifications has brought them down a peg within the army and as I don?t want to see the mobile side of the army disappear no changes here.
Light Tanks
Tractors with attitude. They move, they shoot, they die. Work best when not being shot at and are an essential mobile part of the army in my view with no complaints or I think problems with them
Heavy tanks
A great model, but rarely will you see a formation in your army get as pounded as these tanks. 6 strong makes them brittle, RA or no. Rarely survive a battle as they provide several things the army lacks ? AT fire (even if only at 60cm), hardness and a good target for MW/TK/AT shots. Though I?ve oft hankered for a points decrease others have convinced me (and after a friend recounting the tactic to me in action) that in two or more formations garrissoned forward, perhaps in emplacements they are tricky to deal with so no change.
AA Battery
In testing they were 75 points for 3 with a 4+ entrenched save. They were also available as a single gun company add on. They got made into separate batteries, the entrenched save went to 5+ and the points to 125. I think all three was a bit steep for what is a pretty poor flak piece (normally immobile, LV, AA 5+, 60cm range). The range is good but that?s it. The army is already very vulnerable to air attack, having flak that can be destroyed and broken so easily is a bit much. A slight drop in cost makes air cover more viable.
Recommendation ? Flak battery costs 100 points.
Super Heavies
Well, it?s a shame they aren?t more siege like. Can see why they are in there and they seem to work, not my favourite formations though.
DeathStrikes
For me compulsory and the only source of ranged TK/MW fire apart from the single shadowswords. Change if rules review changes them for Guard, or leave as they are and use the older model (which should be used by any authentic looking force anyway!).
Sappers
My personal favourite unit to play with. I mean Sappers?
Many siege players reckon they are overpriced. Maybe they are, however I simply can?t get enough of them so no objective view. Often my attack is built around them simply because I like them so much. Sadly this means they often die to a man. Two things spoil my enjoyment.
1 ? If I flame the target point blank it gets no cover, but if I firefight it gets a cover save? 2 - I have lost count of the number of sapper I lose to my own barbed wire. Normal troops, fair enough ? but my engineers? Surely they can deal with wire?
Recommendations ? Sapper units get Small Arms, Ignore Cover on their Heavy Flamers and the Walker ability.
Errata ? a small change to the Sapper formation being broken up. Allow it to be added to any company. This allows it to be added to more than just the basic infantry company and if players really want to attach to the artillery company (perhaps to help dig in!) they can.
Fortifications
They do what they say on the tin. Typically you need 2-3 sets and maybe 4 for 5000 point games (but that?s a little hard to fit on the table). 100 points allows 2 infantry companies to get cover, as long as you want to bunch up to suffer artillery strikes and intermingled assaults. Makes the army the army. As it?s a fairly fixed requirement any increase here is felt more in smaller games and less in larger games, so better to alter the cost of the infantry companies.
EDIT
Commissars! Something I've been doing for a while but forgot to include here is non random commissars for guard in general (prob because this a 1 1/2 year old doc). This hasn't bothered me personally as I have alternative command stands for every company but other players do get annoyed at the random nature of commissar selection.
To that end we have adopted 1 commissar per 450 points in the game (giving in case you wondered 7 at 3000 points, a rather deleberately average result).
Overall
The army is ? especially the first time you encounter it ? a very hard nut to crack. Certain strategies work wonders however and though there is a steep learning curve it flattens out to an extent that using the regiment (with above changes) is once more a challenge. Indeed the most cunning of players systematically eliminate the mobile sections of the force (ensuring if nothing else a draw). In case anyone is wondering I?ve got a strategy guide done, but am trying to master acrobat to produce a little game supplement (or I could just subcontract the Incoming! guys!)
I certainly think the above is worthy of wider testing/vault status at the least.
A final note and its something everyone comments on is the massed bombing raids and how they will never happen with this army. I have to silence them a scenario where this is attempted to be addressed (unfortunately on my London PC along with the majority of my air stuff). But otherwise fix the marauder itself please! The simplest being lowering its points to 250 for two, the slightly more complex giving it either a 6+ save and 2dc or 3bp per plane (this for 300 for 2) and the most changes being both of the previous options for 350 for 2 planes.
_________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x
|
