Hi everyone. At the repeated requests of Honda, I have come back after 67 days to rummage through the Elysian thread, make some points, and hopefully get some things cleared up.

With the exception of Honda (maybe), I probably have fielded the Elysians more than anyone else. That isn't a bragging point; only something that needs to be stated so people understand I am not theory-hammering or just giving lip service to Honda's ideas. Honda and I disagree on several points, but we both recognize that we've got time under our belts.

Onto the issues...

Here is the email I sent Honda (with his responses) the other day for a starting point:

1. The Support Sentinels were indirect fire before. You used to have them at 45cm AP5+/AT6+, Indirect, Note: the indirect ability does not double the range of the weapon.
Then we realized that they were waaaaay underpowered, so we went to double the shots to 2 x 45cm AP5+/AT6+ without the indirect. These were overpowered. Regardless of whether they are or not indirect, at some point they 'were' indirect, so it isn't going to be a point of contention by anyone (except maybe you, O' Anally Retentive One). At some point in the past, you moved away from the exact mission of the Support Sentinel (either 1st or 2nd iteration) so I put those proposed stats together with indirect fire to match the mortars.

H: Lucky you, I'm going to shot gun you all day, given availability. So I looked at the stats of the SS and this is what I harvested:

a) These units are rare, so really ought to be an upgrade to the stand-alone sentinel formation. In concept, this formation should be looked at as a fire brigade, used to support an assault or bolster an area that needs help.

b) The first stats you published are what I am leaning towards, only x2, so two shots per stand. So give me a replacement/upgrade cost on a per unit basis. Also, see notes in #2.

c) I like the "Indirect does not double range" as that would most closely follow the 40K stats.

2. So you are saying that it is the same exact weapon? That a Space Marine is carrying around a quad-tubed 2ftx2ftx6ft missile launcher? The models say otherwise. IMO this is akin to a round of 45caliber lead. Imagine the same bullet, but it is fired from a pistol in one example and a carbine in another. Same bullet, same result, different delivery. I'm not proposing we change the damage - note it is identical. Just the method of delivery is different.

H: The other way to look at this is: So it takes you that huge box on chicken legs to carry a man portable missile? The stats are no different between a single space marine with missile launcher and this huge quad box of missiles, except if fired in what Epic considers AP mode. No difference at all.

Having said that, another possibility is to give the sentinel the mulitple rocket pod, which is half of what a Valkyrie carries, and "might" give the stand a 1 BP. We need to think a bit about that.

3. I tend to agree with you to leave them out of the Drop Company. I just can't quantify why I feel that way.

H: They are described as being not tied to the organic company assets, so that their use can be more flexible. That will be the reasoning.

4. Signal's idea is actually pretty good. Better than mine. Points wise they end up more expensive than the bombers on a per-DC comparison, but I suppose the added flexibility might justify that.

H: I thought so as well. I'll proceed with that.

5. Interesting the change of heart for the bombers. So far I haven't seen anything demonstrated to show there is a problem other than E&C's insistence that there is. At the same time, there is nothing wrong with the single bombers that I have found.

H: What he is basing his comments on is the testing of single bombers in the Krieg list. We are adopting that behavior.

6. Disposable is just a generic term. I meant for the cyclop to have some sort of 'grot' rule, that's all. There are a few ideas floating around on the forum. One of them is bound to fit properly.

H: Ok, will consider something maybe. That's not a big rock.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Honda: "Now, where are my points and capabilities...you're going to have to work harder than just do the happy dance for your sentinels."

Are you suffering from heat stroke, South Texas? I sent them to you two emails ago and you commented on them. I really don't know what to revise them to at this point, however, since you are waffling on what to do with the unit. One shot, two shots, BP shot... That is a big spread. I am fine with either the first or the second iteration. BP weapons make me think it will be too much, but I suppose one of the Support Sentinel configurations used to be a rocket pod. The question is what would it be closer to in terms of firepower.

Twin Typhoons are AP3+/AT5+ at 45cm, not indirect. One of those would be 45cm, AP4+/AT6+, direct fire, and that isn't a bad stat line for comparison.
Whirlwinds are 45cm 1 BP Indirect. That IMO would be too much. Cutting it in half would get weird in a hurry too.
Valkyrie Rocket Pods are 30cm 1 BP Disrupt, but those are also one-shots. I don't think this army needs any more 1-shot weapons to be honest. Or BP weapons either.

Here is the Lexicanum breakdown on them...

The Missile Sentinel is armed with a missile launcher and is designed for multiple roles including both tank and infantry hunting.
The Rocket Sentinel is armed with a Multiple Rocket Pod and is designed for a similar role to the Missile Sentinel, just without so much range and destructive capability.
Multiple Rocket Pods are a rapid-fire launcher loaded with standard Frag Missiles but with a faster rate of fire.
Missile Launchers mounted on Sentinels are designed to fire indirectly, however they still fire standard Frag and Krak Missiles.

Reference: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Multipl ... _Launchers

Frag Missiles are designed to explode on impact with any surface, raking the immediate area with lethal shrapnel. Primarily an anti-infantry weapon, it can be used against light vehicles with some success. Frag Missiles are often ineffective against heavy infantry.
Krak Missiles are primarily designed as anti-vehicle weapons, Krak Missiles contain a high strength, low blast shaped charge, causing massive damage to anything it hits with minimal collateral damage. Also very effective against heavy infantry, bunkers and other armored targets.

The standard Imperial Missile Launcher has a built in targeting device and is fired from the shoulder. It is a single round weapon, and cannot be fired on the move. Standard Imperial Guard doctrine is for one man to carry aim and fire the missile launcher, whilst a second man carries the ammunition and re-loads the weapons. A well-drilled fire team can maintain a formidable rate of fire, enough to daunt the bravest of tank commanders. Space Marines generally carry their own ammunition, being easily strong enough to hold the missile launcher in one hand whilst re-loading with the other. Note also that whilst an Imperial guardsman will generally fire from a kneeling or prone position, Space Marine enhancements grant them a superior aim even from standing.

So that is everything I could find on their weaponry. Missile launchers were definitely designed to "fire indirectly", so a 45cm AP5+/AT6+, indirect would be in line with that. If left as is, that would mean a range of 90cm. I am going to back-peddle a little here and propose that maybe that isn't a bad idea after all. Really, besides Vultures with their one-shots, what has any range in the Elysian army? Nothing. It isn't like the Support Sentinels are overpowered, over overarmed, overarmored. If it is the same weapon AND designed to be fired indirectly, then that is the by-the-book stat line.

If you can't stomach the idea of a 90cm weapon range (even if it is indirect), then IMO the next best thing is to put in a lower range of 30cm-40cm. Doubling it puts it at 60-80cm indirect range and that is totally workable. It also avoids any special rule which is preferable. Lastly, it helps the formation fit well as an add-on to the Mortars which already have an indirect range of 60cm.

Mortar units + Support Sentinels upgrade
Drop units + Drop Sentinels upgrade
Drop Sentinels as an independent formation
Support Sentinels as an independent formation

Yin & Yang. Balance in design. All is right with the world.

Anyway, that is all I have for you. Run, Forrest! Run!!!

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Okay, with those emails out of the way, I want to post on the comments from the main thread.

The Army overall: IMO is underpowered, but not incredibly so. Unless you have played with it, the problems are NOT obvious as another poster suggested. The Elysians have some issues that need to be addressed. Some of those issues have been addressed, others haven't, still more have had solutions presented but they didn't work.

One complaint I have never, ever, ever heard was that the games "all played the same". Each game is as varied as any other army I have played against. Saying they all play the same is like saying all Ork armies play the same. You set up, you double, you shoot, you miss. You assault, you kill stuff, you win, you lose. The army does have limits, but that is okay.

Strategy Rating: IMO this might not be a bad idea. I'm not for it or against it. I just don't know how much of an effect it would have.

Teleporting: This army is representational of a drop army coming in on grav chutes. It has worked fairly well as such and has never gotten a complaint once about being overpowered or being unrealistic. The reason why is probably because everything dies so magnificently fast. Having no armor or low armor does that to you. It also has something to do with the fact that people can wrap their heads around it. Swooping Hawks in Eldar lists are designed the same way and nobody bats an eyelash at those.

CAP from the beginning: This could work, but I would like to see what kind of effect Signal's aircraft formation idea has on the list first. Isn't the rule of thumb to avoid special rules when possible? Heck, I am pretty sure adding a dropping AA gun into the army would solve the problem overnight. I don't know for certain, but I was pretty sure the Elysians had them and that would be a major assist. Somebody throw me a citation, please, one way or the other.

Proposed idea for aircraft-skimmer rule thing: It has been proposed multiple times in a different army in a different thread to have skimmers come on as aircraft and then act as skimmers. Back then it was called the VTOL rule. There was another version of it as well which was also opposed. I opposed it then only because I felt there was no reason to allow that in one list and not in all the lists. My feelings have not changed.

I'm not trying to call anyone to the mattresses, but there were people who were opposed to those ideas THEN, who are in favor of them for this list now. The justification for such a change is unknown - I suppose they have every right to change their minds. But it seems silly to take a list that plays well and fun and fundamentally change it without any playtesting to support that change, not to mention any consideration as to what that would do to how the lists would be built, the impact on the number of expensive models, or any number of other issues. In other words, by trying to introduce such a rule, you are effectively scrapping the Elysian list and starting fresh. With several ideas available still, I can't imagine a need for such a change.

I might post more, but I think this is enough to spur discussion.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

This is a reference for the VTOL thread and the responses to it. This is NOT NOT NOT meant as an offensive thing against Zombocom or E&C. But I do find it ironic that their arguments against VTOL apply considerably well to the consideration to give skimmers some sort of special ability in the Elysian army.

http://www.taccmd.tacticalwargames.net/viewtopic.php?f=86&t=13449

E&C: "I'm still unconvinced about the nessesity of the VTOL rule."
E&C: "The VTOL rule is still an unnessesary Special Rule that doesn't belong in Epic."
Zombocom: "Either have them as flyers or as skimmers. I see no need at all for yet another special rule in an already somewhat bloated list."
Zombocom: "VTOL: Entirely unneeded special rule. Make it a plane or a skimmer, not both. Maybe a skimmer with planetfall at most."

One of the nice things about the Elysians is that it is a relatively simple army to play. Adding some new rule is going to raise eyebrows.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Oh boy! It's Bill!

Some discussion for your first two posts:

1)

On the support sentinel stats, given their weapon rules in 40k I think this would capture their armaments best in EA:

The ML is just a 40k Missile Launcher with the ability to indirect with its Frag missiles. Back in 3/4th edition G48 was used for Mortars and the Griffon as well, so 30cm Indirect has precedence.


The MRP is 2 24" ranged frag missiles in 40k. Something like this ought to work, perhaps with a boost to the FF?



3) I agree, IA3 says they lend support to sentinel companies.

6) What about religating the cyclop to a character upgrade rather than making it a unit?

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I agree that it's underpowered from the few games I've played against Bill and Matt on VASSAL. I think adding Plasmaguns to the basic infantry was a step in the right direction and helped with the "teleporting in/being unable to fire your support squads that you paid for" problem. I haven't played against the list since then but if people are still having problems with that/teleport how about using Free Planetfall instead? Granted you'd have to preplot drop companies but they'd come in with no BMs and get a chance to activate right away. You probably wouldn't have to up the SR with that either. V-CAP might still be necessary though if you wanted to start with stuff on-board.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Not fair man. I'm not arguing for any kind of VTOL rule for valks.

I'm going to pop in for one short post then I'm off again for n months, and I'm probably not coming back to the rules dev side of things because I'm tired of all the hostility.

The VTOL rule was quite different and much more expansive than the rule I proposed. It was also an unnecessary sideline to the inquisition list, unlike here where a similar much more limited rule would have been a core feature.

It's also not the only idea I think would work, others were also proposed that would make the list more tactically complex in playstyle.

Cheers all.

- E&C

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Zombocom, you did suggest this:


It is yet another special rule idea for something that is handled eloquently enough as is. It also adds the need for yet MORE high priced models for an army that already costs about the same as a black market kidney (exaggeration for conversational effects).
---

E&C, this wasn't meant to be hostile. If you took it that way I'm sorry. I am simply agreeing with you in the past instead of the present. The VTOL idea is considerably close to what you were suggesting on page 20 or 21 of the other thread.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Mosc: I was just throwing ideas around for what would make a much more fun list, and nothing even remotely like VTOL. In fact, the reason I suggested two seperate units (high altitude and normal) was because others had suggested a VTOL style rule that I wasn't keen on. At least quote me in context.

Wasn't meant as an offensive thing, B. Relax. I did post the thread link so people could read it in its entirety. And the conext is there - you calling out the fact that a special rule isn't needed when we can fix the problem with existing mechanics. While the changes proposed to Elysians may be different (slightly or largely) matters not. The argument is the same.

It is weird that you are getting offended when I am agreeing with you. Well, You-from-the-past, but it still counts doesn't it? You were right. You should feel happy!

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

You're twisting my words entirely.

In the Inquisition list, I was against a specific special rule because the list was overly cluttered with them, and because it seemed unfair that other lists wouldn't have access to it.

In this list, people were suggesting the same VTOL rule (more or less), and I proposed an alternative, because I still don't like that rule idea.

I'm not being inconsistent, and you are rather offensively suggesting that I'm being hypocritical, because I was against a special rule once but I'm now for a different special rule in a different list.

Please read the "civility" thread that recently opened, and please don't take out your anger from an off-board discussion we had here.

Here are the quotes. Zombo, you are in fact arguing for a VTOL type rule in part, but are also being consistent with previous statements. Mosc is not attacking you personally, and I didn't open that thread for you to point at if someone disagrees with you in a civil manner, even stating he is not trying to attack you in the original post to avoid confusion.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Barny, I'm not. I apologize if I've come across that way. Our FB discussion has nothing to do with this and it was not my intention at all to make you feel upset. I, in fact, posted above that perhaps you and Ben simply changed your mind and that you have every right to do so. Go read it - it hasn't been edited and you can see for yourself. Don't think specifics, just in general, your own arguments apply here.

There is no twisting either. Back then you and Ben were strictly opposed to using special rules and even reluctant to implement your own ideas because it would introduce another special rule. You do understand I am agreeing with your posts from then, right? I can't think of anything more civil than to agree with your ideas.

Honda invited dragged me back to this mad house and I reluctantly agreed.

So let me ask a few questions: Do you play with the Elysians? Or against them? How many games have you played with them? Have you had a chance to field test the ideas that you are proposing? What was the impact on the game? How many extra models did you use? Do you have any pictures from the games? What did your opponent think of the new idea? Were there any snags that came up? What did these new units cost?

Your idea is interesting, but you can't expect people to just drop the army mechanics as they are in favor of some untested day dream. Ex. Honda has gotten four ear fulls of my Support Sentinel ranting even before he removed them. Before even trying to change the list, however, I went out and field tested the Support Sentinels with new stats and gave him two batreps so he could see the effects of what I was suggesting. Then he implement the changes. Of course then he removed the Support Sentinels entirely which caused me to send a dead fish to him in the mail, but that is another story....

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

This is me actively arguing AGAINST a VTOL type rule, and reiterating my feelings from the Inquisition discussions. I'm not at all arguing for a VTOL type rule; I suggested the high-flying valks as an ALTERNATIVE to a VTOL type rule. It was throwing ideas about to try to create something more interesting.

I stand by my position on the inquisition list, but that's not the same as saying I'm against all special rules in all lists. I'm sure if I dig through enough posts I can find a post somewhere on some list where you're calling for a new special rule, then post it here as "proof" that I'm somehow right.

Saying "This is NOT NOT NOT meant as an offensive thing" before being offensive doesn't make it ok.