Tactical Command :: View topic

What would you suggest for the rare upgrade table per? Stay at 70 or drop?

LEMAN RUSS RARE VARIANTS
(One in five Leman Russ variants may be rare.)
UNIT COST
Destroyer Tank Hunter +70 points
Leman Russ Executioner +20 points
Leman Russ Vanquisher +45 points

700pts - TankCompany (9 Leman Russ, 1 Vanquisher) + Armored Regimental Commissar, 1 hydra
650pts - Super Heavy Tank company (1 Baneblade, 2 Stormhammers) + Amphibious, Armored Regimental Commissar, Supreme Commander, 1 hydra
450pts - Tank Platoon (6 Leman Russ Demolishers) + Amphibious, Armored Regimental Commissar, 1 hydra
200pts - Deathstrike Missile Platoon (2 Deathstrikes) + Armored Regimental Commissar
300pts - Mechanized Platoon (5 Chimera, 10 Imperial Guard Infantry) + Amphibious, Armored Regimental Commissar
250pts - Self-Propelled Artillery Platoon (3 Manticores) + Armored Regimental Commissar

150pts - Thunderbolt Fighters (2 Thunderbolts)
150pts - Thunderbolt Fighters (2 Thunderbolts)
150pts - Thunderbolt Fighters (2 Thunderbolts)

A Destroyer Tank Hunter’s 40k stats don’t at all justify titan killer – it’s nowhere near that powerful –

and having it means the Minnervan version is equally good at killing infantry, which doesn’t fit the background.

A Destroyer Tank Hunter’s 40k stats don’t at all justify titan killer – it’s nowhere near that powerful.

Just thinking, does someone here remember why Minnerva hadn't been added no Griffon or Hellhound formations back in the day? To avoid kitchen sink lists maybe? I think we should work taking into account that first.

Two new formations isn't going to push this list into the kitchen sink category.

When the list was written the Laser Destroyer was identical to the Volcano Cannon 40k stats at the time (IA1) in all but range and the lack of the "Titan Killer" special rule (which caused d3 structure points with a hit). With EA's Volcano being a TK(d3) it was completely justified and made sense for the Destroyer to be straight TK.

While I agree that it could have been AT2+, TK, to avoid being an infantry hunter as well I think that road wasn't taken due to either the MW hit allocation wording (i.e. it needs MW in the firepower to be allocated as a MW hit) or people just not recognizing that flexibility was there. The first argument didn't really hold water for me then, and still doesn't.

Author:	Armiger84 [ Wed Aug 11, 2021 7:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Minervan changes
Looking over the playtest proposal & suggested changes, I'm interested and inclined to give this a try. Biggest problem with the existing approved list is the relative cost of a full 10-strong Leman Russ tank company, which tended to drive players to loading up on SHT companies instead to open up more support options. That, or you load up on Thunderers and you've got a BTS formation mostly marching because it sure as heck isn't shooting at anybody until late-game. A 6-strong Leman Russ demi-company with 5x LR and 1x LR Vanquisher hits 425 points and offers a reasonably solid fire base that can still be broken, and gets relatively close to matching three Baneblades for firepower (with obvious drawbacks in terms of suppression and weaker battle cannon shots). It's a relatively minor change, but even with a few upgrades you should still claw back ~100 points / core formation toward adding another support activation. Minervan has room for toys at 4,000 points currently, but struggles a little to build a rounded list at 3,000. This would give a little more room for activations and options, so I'd definitely give it a test.

Author:	Dave [ Wed Aug 11, 2021 9:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Minervan changes
jimmyzimms wrote: What would you suggest for the rare upgrade table per? Stay at 70 or drop? LEMAN RUSS RARE VARIANTS (One in five Leman Russ variants may be rare.) UNIT COST Destroyer Tank Hunter +70 points Leman Russ Executioner +20 points Leman Russ Vanquisher +45 points As an upgrade the Ulani stats are probably +20ish maybe? It's one nice shot and that's about it.

Author:	jimmyzimms [ Thu Aug 12, 2021 1:49 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Minervan changes
Thanks Dave. Going to rope in Matt on this one to test it out some

Author:	scarik [ Fri Aug 13, 2021 12:52 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Minervan changes
I've played Minervans since NEAT 1 and I've never had a strong list that wasn't all SHT companies with everything else support. 3 SHT companies is really the only way to get enough activations without spamming aircraft (which I will still do regardless...) so I'm in favor of changing the Lemans to be something cheaper so that you can use them.

Author:	Dave [ Fri Aug 13, 2021 1:46 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Minervan changes
I think that was the only time you took infantry... Quote: 700pts - TankCompany (9 Leman Russ, 1 Vanquisher) + Armored Regimental Commissar, 1 hydra 650pts - Super Heavy Tank company (1 Baneblade, 2 Stormhammers) + Amphibious, Armored Regimental Commissar, Supreme Commander, 1 hydra 450pts - Tank Platoon (6 Leman Russ Demolishers) + Amphibious, Armored Regimental Commissar, 1 hydra 200pts - Deathstrike Missile Platoon (2 Deathstrikes) + Armored Regimental Commissar 300pts - Mechanized Platoon (5 Chimera, 10 Imperial Guard Infantry) + Amphibious, Armored Regimental Commissar 250pts - Self-Propelled Artillery Platoon (3 Manticores) + Armored Regimental Commissar 150pts - Thunderbolt Fighters (2 Thunderbolts) 150pts - Thunderbolt Fighters (2 Thunderbolts) 150pts - Thunderbolt Fighters (2 Thunderbolts)

Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Minervan changes http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=34553	Page 2 of 5

Author:	scarik [ Fri Aug 13, 2021 3:31 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Minervan changes
I did one other time. Mech inf + conqueror platoon. It didn't do well because I spent all my support on it. With tanks as core formations combined arms Minervans might work out.

Author:	Abetillo [ Sat Aug 14, 2021 3:28 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Minervan changes
I am of the opinion that it is better to make what we have work instead of working with something different. So make Leman Russ companies more viable rather than to completely modify one of the basic parts of GI in EA. Also, if it isn't broken don't change it, or don't kill flies with cannons. I think we could test with an slight decrease in cost in the hulls in the company but there is another issue ... ...which i am concerned about, that, time and time again, Minerva pops up as the most overpowered and frustrating list to play against amongst newbies by a far margin, and it takes a lot of work to make them understand its weaknesses. Making Conquerors and Thunderers cheaper would make this even worse. I know that we can't and we shouldn't make lists for dummies but i don't want for it to be too bad. Which is the reason i am partially in favour of formations made of Griffons and Hellhounds if that makes people stand away from Thunderer and/or Conqueror spam, even if it will make the list go a bit out of flavour and kitchen sink-ish. PS: changes on the costs of the Executioner and Tank Hunter sounds nice to test. They are too rarely seen.

Author:	GlynG [ Sat Aug 14, 2021 10:27 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Minervan changes
I view Thunderers as too cheap at 280 for 6 x 4+ Reinforced Armour units and think they would be fairer costed at +5 points each or 310 for a formation of 6. Admittedly I haven’t played the Minnervan list much but when theory hammering possible lists for it I have often tended to spam Thunderers. Also I’d suggest considering adopting the Epic-UK Destroyer Tank Hunter stats instead too – they are WAY more in character and appropriate for the unit. A Destroyer Tank Hunter’s 40k stats don’t at all justify titan killer – it’s nowhere near that powerful – and having it means the Minnervan version is equally good at killing infantry, which doesn’t fit the background. The Epic UK Destroyer is 75cm AT 2+ Sniper instead on a 3 strong dedicated support formation with scout (not possible to upgrade core russ formations with them), so they specialised at forward sniping of AT targets as per it’s background.

Author:	Abetillo [ Sun Aug 15, 2021 10:37 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Minervan changes
Just thinking, does someone here remember why Minnerva hadn't been added no Griffon or Hellhound formations back in the day? To avoid kitchen sink lists maybe? I think we should work taking into account that first. GlynG wrote: A Destroyer Tank Hunter’s 40k stats don’t at all justify titan killer – it’s nowhere near that powerful – Then it sounds the same as what happens with the Tigershark AX-1-0 and some others. GlynG wrote: and having it means the Minnervan version is equally good at killing infantry, which doesn’t fit the background. I think this part is a common necessary evil we can ignore in general due to abstraction and ease of use of rules it brings, as pretty much half the MW shots in EA fit into this category.

Author:	Dave [ Sun Aug 15, 2021 12:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Minervan changes
GlynG wrote: A Destroyer Tank Hunter’s 40k stats don’t at all justify titan killer – it’s nowhere near that powerful. When the list was written the Laser Destroyer was identical to the Volcano Cannon 40k stats at the time (IA1) in all but range and the lack of the "Titan Killer" special rule (which caused d3 structure points with a hit). With EA's Volcano being a TK(d3) it was completely justified and made sense for the Destroyer to be straight TK. While I agree that it could have been AT2+, TK, to avoid being an infantry hunter as well I think that road wasn't taken due to either the MW hit allocation wording (i.e. it needs MW in the firepower to be allocated as a MW hit) or people just not recognizing that flexibility was there. The first argument didn't really hold water for me then, and still doesn't. Abetillo wrote: Just thinking, does someone here remember why Minnerva hadn't been added no Griffon or Hellhound formations back in the day? To avoid kitchen sink lists maybe? I think we should work taking into account that first. It was still young in Epic's lifetime, and people weren't pushing for more use for their models. I'm sure many figured the umpteem-dozen lists in development would get approved so there'd be a list you could use them in somewhere. Nearly 15 years later that's no longer the case. Two new formations isn't going to push this list into the kitchen sink category, for one the units are already in it, and two it's still going to be thematically the same, a "lots of armor, few infantry" list.

Author:	Abetillo [ Sun Aug 15, 2021 2:14 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Minervan changes
Dave wrote: Two new formations isn't going to push this list into the kitchen sink category. Yeah, bad wording from my part. What i wanted to say is that back then the intention was probably to make lists thematic and focus Minerva on the RA units, which it actually is, and they left the lighter tanks focus to another list like you say. Hellhounds and Griffons would put Minerva more into the lighter theme Ulani has, as focus will be less on the core than it is currently on SL and MN, plus will be less hammer and anvil IG style this way. It is one of the reasons i am not completely into HH and Griff for MN.

Author:	Dave [ Sun Aug 15, 2021 3:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Minervan changes
The problem with that is there's little to no playtesting anymore, so I don't really want to push them to another list because we're guessing at what the original theme of the list was. The list came about because of the old GW page on them and people wanted to use all the FW Russ and SHT models that weren't in any list at the time. Claiming anything beyond that with regards to the list's theme is conjecture at this point, unless you can point me to a post from Mosc, E&C or TRC. Everyone else on the thread seems for it, and given we're talking about support formations they're not going to be mandatory. I'm here, I've got an army, and I'm willing to get some games in with the New England crowd to test them out in Minervans, and so is CaptPiett, so why not?

Author:	jimmyzimms [ Sun Aug 15, 2021 5:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Minervan changes
Except we have a balanced working Ulani list. Just adopt it wholesale. It's been used for years and years. Sure harmonize some stats and maybe tweak a few formations slightly but that's the 6 tests level unless we're being lavishly procrustean

Author:	GlynG [ Sun Aug 15, 2021 10:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Minervan changes
Dave wrote: When the list was written the Laser Destroyer was identical to the Volcano Cannon 40k stats at the time (IA1) in all but range and the lack of the "Titan Killer" special rule (which caused d3 structure points with a hit). With EA's Volcano being a TK(d3) it was completely justified and made sense for the Destroyer to be straight TK. While I agree that it could have been AT2+, TK, to avoid being an infantry hunter as well I think that road wasn't taken due to either the MW hit allocation wording (i.e. it needs MW in the firepower to be allocated as a MW hit) or people just not recognizing that flexibility was there. The first argument didn't really hold water for me then, and still doesn't. Glancing back at the stats in the original Imperial Armour the Destroyer has S10 AP2, which is high but identical to the Demolisher Cannon (that obviously doesn’t have TK) so it’s abilities were definitely rounded up when things could have gone different ways. The 2nd edition of the FW guard book dropped the Destroyer’s weapon down to S9 while significantly boosting the stats of the Shadowsword Volcano Cannon so it’s subsequently had much less justification I think the Epic UK version of AT2+ Sniper is more appropriate as it’s still gets a -1 to the enemy armour save and it gets to pick specific enemy targets so it can target an enemy command or AA vehicle or whatever as per it’s sniping background. With the Epic UK ones having scout a 3 strong formations of them get to garrison on overwatch as a powerful but easy to break formation that is unusual but very characterful for the unit. Shrug up to you all though, I can suggest it as a good option that seems balanced in the UK list but it’s not my call to make.

Page 2 of 5	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	scarik [ Sun Aug 15, 2021 11:21 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Minervan changes
I have never considered paying for the TDs. +70 is crazy. The AT2+ stats would be ok mainly so that they could be lower cost and maybe see play. The focus of the list should stay on the RA units, so the companies should really stay that way and I would also be against the 6 strong hellhounds and other non-RA stuff. Thunderers are cheap, disposable RA but they suck at almost everything else. 5+FF and one demolisher cannon shot is nothing to brag about in a Minervan list.