Zombo I believe, from memory, that Frogbear has costed zerkers this way because as far as I remember it's actually very hard to make it into CC in Epic with a full formation. Zerkers suffer from slow on foot which really takes the wind out of the list and lets the enemy cut the heart out of expensive formations before they even get to do their thing.

As to the CC attacks, well I think FB and I both see eye to eye that the WE's zerkers are just a bit more "special" than your normal run-of-the-mill BL zerker. They suffer from various aggression implants and the like and so are just that cut above IMO.

Awesome!



It is all they can do really, so we wanted to make sure that when they did get into CC (which is not always that easy to do) they have an impact. As many armies offset CC with Skimmer, we have not found this to be an issue at all. 23 playtests will show that it really has had mixed results, with a majority not that great.  



That is 13 activations of 8 units all foot slogging it across a table. Any additions to the formations really reduces this. Putting it like that, do you see it as spamming? I am curious. Remember also that unlike other forces, these guys have no shooting.  




I always find the 'scout ability' with Slaughterfiends far superior myself. 30cm is good yet you have to determine where they will start and what impact 4 units are going to have on a battle. I would use them for objective reasons, or drop pods, but that is it really. How do you see them used?




It is being considered that I remove the whole 'Abhuman' upgrade. I think that alone will answer this whole paragraph.




hehehe. I reduced this because eypyeash advised that it looked like they were carrying a rack of weapons into combat. I can definitely put another line in.  




The army falls over to Skimmer armies without these guys. The army cannot combat skimmers without a 4+ FF. TRC has also suggested that they should be 5+ FF so you are not the only one to ask about this. Skimmers have such an advantage in the game, that a whole army of 1 attack 5+FF is simply not competitive. Any suggestions if I do move them to 5+ FF?




Happy to place them back to CC6+. I increased the Rhino costs to 25 points for 2 and Morgan suggested that the increase in CC was an acceptable addition. I am happy to play them at CC6+ with the price increase either way as it makes putting an army together very easy.




Any idea on which one(s) I should remove?  My preference would be to remove the Ravager if any.



Any advice from Mr Z will be well taken indeed  

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Agree with everything quoted here  

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I'll jump in here, cause this was kinda my idea.

Yes, 2xCC3+ is a lot better than CC2+. It all came about because of my absolute hatred of 'all Fearless core units'. It was just boring as crap to play against. So Fearless was changed to Stubborn, and so we had to work on costings.

We wanted to keep the formation in the 250-300pt range. Initially, we went with 2xCC4+ (only marginally better than CC2+). But that was nowhere near sufficient. So either we drop the cost, or up their effectiveness. Increases to any other ability were just not appropriate.

The basic retinue seems to be getting changed to cost another 50pts (compulsory Blood Lord), but the spammable nature was tested, and proved not that great. Having a 3+ Initiative (2+ without Blood Lord, almost guaranteed BM's due to the nature of CC units without delivery systems if spamming), meant that even with few actual losses, you're still going into most combats down. Lack of ability to place BM's puts you down two, and you won't outnumber most opponents 2:1. Add no Inspiring means you HAVE to make it up in CC. And it's been consistent through the playtests that 2xCC3+ isn't any more powerful than it needs to be to do the job.

Morgan Vening

I understand the "on foot" issue, they just still seem incredibly cheap for such awesome CC stats.

Compare them in price to the almost identically stated Dark Eldar Incubi - 250 points for 4 units, albeit with a couple of LV raiders included in the price.



2xCC4+ is still better than standard bezerkers. 2xCC3+ just seems a little fanboyish.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Compare them to standard Assault marines. Same stats except twice the CC. That's pretty damn awesome.

It basically nullifies the need to transport the formation, which means they can be kept cheap, and those 4 bases are more than powerful enough to win a lot of engagements since they'll find it easier to get into CC. I can't imagine ever taking scout instead of double speed. In droppods they'd be almost unbeatable, though a little more expensive.




Maybe make them normal chaos marine bikers then, find somewhere else to have reasonable firefight or simply live with it as an intentional downside of the list. It's not like there aren't enough shooty
war engines for dealing with skimmers. I don't like making units better than the originals with no downsides - it just makes it feel more of a fan list. Frankly FF5+ is not that bad, particularly when combined with large formations, decent armour saves and stubborn. On average an 8 unit bezerker formation will score 2.66 FF hits, the same as a 4 unit devestator formation. Hardly terrible!

A list that is so focused on CC as this one is will always have a problem with Scissors, Paper, Stone. It will suffer against skimmers in the same way that Marines suffer against titans and feral orks suffer against aircraft. All lists should have weaknesses.




Is the warhound equivilent canon? If not then start with that, else lose the lord of battles. It fits in a general khorne list but not really in a world eaters one.

Definitely lose one of the brass scorpions, and the generic khorne assault engine. The generic assault engine sticks out as a sore thumb given that you have several specific assault engines in the list.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

I just looked at the comparison. I laughed as e actually made this exact comparison early in the development

Incubi have a character (the Berserkers at base do not) and that character has Commander which is an ability the WoE have to spend 100 points to attain. Add in the Raiders and I think the two units are pretty comparable for their role.

Hit & Run, Fleet of Foot, and Web Portals for the army that allow support on a greater measure, would more than make up for any Blood Rage or 'Stubborn substitute' I would think.

Based on those observations, wouldn't you agree?

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

When I first saw the Warhound titan for the first time (I was a kid then), I though it was definately a Khornate engine with the Flesh-hound head. How could I cut something from the list that looks so very Khornate?  

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I think the point that Zombo is trying to make, is that smaller titans are more likely to be taken in a tournament list vs. the larger cousins. So giving up something that most aren't likely to take isn't really sacrificing a choice.

If it were me, I'd give up the Warhound and then keep the DC3 Brass Scorpion. A) the Warhound really isn't tied to the WoE and B) the inclusion of the BScorp more closely aligns you with the post-Skalathrax list.

@Zombo:

I'm not sure you realize this, but you've used the term "fanboy" a fair amount in your comments and I think that's coming off a bit condescending. FB is here to work out his list, asked for the community's help and the issues are in progress. That isn't the definition of a "fanboy".

I believe his intentions are to produce the best list he can, on a subject that many of us have a high degree of interest in, for the benefit of the community and cover a list .

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

I actually was aware of having used varients of that word several times, and did so carefully and deliberately. I understand it has emotional connotations but there is no clearer way of getting across my feelings about some of the details in the list.

We all have "fanboyish" sides, and when writing unit stats it's very easy to give in to them. GW's fluff text and 40k rules are deliberately intended to foster this feeling. In 40k everything new is given amazing stats to sell more models, everything must be "teh most uber". Space Marines are the best. Chaos Space Marines are better than the best. Bezerkers are even better. World eaters are better again etc etc etc.

Epic works differently, everything is understated and subtle. List development is better off erring on the side of caution and then improving where neccesary than starting overstatted and stripping down. Powerful stats and cheap prices should be used with caution, and deliberate weaknesses factored in.

I'm not calling FB a fanboy, just saying that some of the stats come across as "fanboyish". There's a difference.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Incubi also have worse FF, but that's beside the point really. There's a definite point disparity, and though I also think incubi are overpriced, I think it's still a little worrying.

It's more the 2xCC3+ on the core unit of the army that concerns me than the cost itself. I'd much rather see a stat drop than a points increase.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

And there's difference in cost. 50 points more for the Chosen and no ATSKNF for a 4 unit formation


Well from my perspective, a 4 unit formation won't win "a lot" of engagements unless they're only hitting small enemy formations. You can only base 4 enemy at at time and if they're a larger formation - even with BMs - the return FF/CC will do quite a bit of damage to the Chosen. Also, at 200 points a formation, I'm not sure "cheap" is the word I'd use for a 4 unit formation actually.


The problem is then the ultimate close combat marine unit type wouldn't be the best option to buy in the list and the list is about the World Eaters. Regardless of your "fanboy" view, some things just need to be a certain way to promote their use. I don't need to tell you to look at the Fire Warriors as a prime example, do I?

The WE's are a cut above standard khorne zerkers. More aggressive, more psychotic, more blood thirsty. They deserve to be different and better. Otherwise, as FB and Morgan seem to have already shown, the stats you propose leave them just blah. Here's a rhetorical question:

Would people be excited to take a unit type they know doesn't perform as its been written about? Especially if it's the focus of a list.

Somethings just need more. Call it artistic license or whatever. This game is not just about cold numbers as the stats folks on Taccomms like to throw around. You can't base your views solely on theory like you've been doing. There's far too many variations in design of units and lists and how the lists get played to do so. Sure they provide a basis but it's not an exact science in terms of game play. For instance, have you taken into account the losses a zerker formation would accrue getting to its target to be the "awesome" formation you state? It makes a big difference.

My 2 cents.

At this time I think it is important to state two points:

1. Dobbsy's list and this list are being consolidated to provide the NetEA with 1 list for the World Eaters. I hope to close of all discussions this week to allow the two groups to get together and discuss what we are going to place forward as the proposal. Overall it will be a great Aussie initiative that I feel has been missing from the NetEA until now. Regardless of what is placed forward, it goes through a year of playtests before being reviewed for acceptance, so if there are concerns, the best way to highlight these are through playtests of the final proposal - hopfully sooner rather than later.

2. Discussions with Hena recently have come to the conclusion that the Death Guard and this list (current format) will be changing the 'Stubborn' rule name to 'Indomitable'. The squats can now have Stubborn back and any list that wishes to move away from Fearless units can now use 'Indomitable' as the substitute if they desire.

Regards.  

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

FB: Been reading this thread with great interest and hope to get a WE force together (albeit in PH colours) in time for some playtests.

I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of placing your v2.4 on my website for download (with credit given of course). When the consolidated list is produced I will of course remove 2.4 and put up the playtest list.

List found here: Rules Page

D.

_________________
Epic:Armageddon... Like Apocalypse but for grown-ups.

[b]Bearded Dice[/b]: [url]http://bearded-dice.co.uk[/url]

Thanks Mr D

I take it as a compliment. No doubt we will have the revised combined lists ready asap for people. Dobbsy and I are getting together Friday to discuss the two lists and see what shape it will take. From initial discussions, we are both in agreement on many of the points. If that is the way it goes for the rest of the ideas, it will not be too long at all    

Loving the Thousand Sons site by the way  

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats