Zombo
The slippery slope starts at this point

I'm experimenting with costing the SM Captain at 35 points in my Minotaurs list, though not had a chance to test it out yet.

25 is IMO too cheap for the MW EA and invulnerable save.

Glyn: Honestly I still doubt people'd take it much at 25 points, the inspiring or MW FF is just such a better option, but you'd likely see them used as a cheap upgrade to formations that don't normally get a character.

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

I'd spam them in all formations simply for Leader if they were 25 pts.

Not saying that that would be the optimal way to play it, but that's what I would do!

For the commander rule I thought about something that might be useful... as house rule of course.

What does a commander do? Leads troops. So yeah there needs to be something that reflect this. Actually the combined engage is a specific leading; coordinating two or more formations as a whole. As most stated, this may not be enough, since you don't always want to;
-combine formations (losing activations rapidly)
-engage at all

Here we go. There needs to be something general, which is good for all kind formations and units, not breaks the rules / balance etc.

I go back for the very basics; activation. Whenever a formation fails it's activation it takes a Blast Marker, and can only resolve a Hold action.
So how about a formation lead by a commander, failing an activation test, NOT receiving a Blast Marker, though still restricted to Hold action?
For me the failed activation is a situation where the HQ orders are not received properly / at all and thus the formation gets disoriented, confused or idle. This time a commander steps in with his authority (especially if he is the supreme commander himself) and issues small scale, not preplanned order. (which is the Hold action)

_________________
Epic Commander of the Prassium Invasion Troops 214th Regiment
***Action is our prayer. Victory is our offering.***

I like that suggestion v/ much. As it stands the combined assault is very, very hard to pull off and so the commander ability is barely significant.

_________________

so this suggestion would be replacing the combined assault or in addition to?

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

As far as we end to the conclusion of the commander rule itself is needed some buff or love, my suggestion would be an addition next to the combined assault rule.

Though I rarely saw somebody using combined assault (most cases; teleporting units swarming down BTS target) I don't think it should be replaced or removed.

_________________
Epic Commander of the Prassium Invasion Troops 214th Regiment
***Action is our prayer. Victory is our offering.***

Intriguing idea for the BM idea, but it assumes that all commanders are overpriced when it seems the Space Marine commander is the real problem. There are plenty of other commanders that are inexpensive or even free (Eldar Avatar and Elysian Commanders are just two free types). By changing the rule you change the rule for all of them, potentially unbalancing a dozen lists.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

While Commander is not usually seen as a good Leader type except for Marines, I have found the Eldar Farseer 'commander' to be very effective, and so I do not think this is in need of a change.

I may be missing something here, but this sounds like you are combining the "Leader" attribute into Commander, or worse, permitting the Commander to remove two BMs (as part of this rule, and 1 more when rallying).

So, I tend to agree with Mosc that this may end up unbalancing things, or working in an unexpected way, and is probably best not changed.

I totally agree with your opinions. Now I see I picked up the commander rule from the perspective of those armies which tends to not use them much, unlike the lists which Rug nicely summarized.
It's truly hard to set commander rule fine for everywhere, when its useless and powerful at once. But following this course we arrive at the lists one by one. As Moscovian pointed out, the lists have different prices or even costless commanders.

Perhaps it would be the "easiest" (well easier to say than do ) way to alter them pricewise as this option came up with the marine commander issue. (If I'm correct that was the starter for this discussion.)

_________________
Epic Commander of the Prassium Invasion Troops 214th Regiment
***Action is our prayer. Victory is our offering.***

Me again. (Stubborness is one of my key attributes...)

It happened that I warped back in time, and read some parts of the 3th edition Epic 40k.
Apart from the insurance that E:A is better for me, overall, there are some little pieces which might be an interesting idea to lift from the 3th ed into the current rulebook.

First one is: transports. In E:A, the transport unit moves into base-contact to pick up infantry, and it cannot disembark in the same movement.
Some infantry may be closer, some may be farther, so how we can tell, that how many cm, each transport move to pick them up (Of course in the case, when infantry are not standing beetween the transport vehicle and the target destination.)
Gentlemen can easily agree in an average or abstract method. Every transport have to move 5 cm to pick up infantry, then move on, to target destination.

Tadaaaam! This is what happens in 3th ed! From another approach; Either picking up or disembarking infantry, the transport vehicle substracts 5 cm-s from the exact move, when the action takes place. (It doesn't matter if infantry closer or farther, beacuse of averaging / abstraction... this is Epic afterall.)
Also this could apply in the same movement, and thus substracting 10 cm-s for picking up and disembarking infantry.
(Disembark infantry max 5 cm away from vehicle stays as is.)

This I guess solves two things: Transport vehicle, moving up, slowing down and disembarking troops won't become faster / longer reach, than a transport vehicle moving up and doing nothing else...
Disembarked formation may normally do an Engage action, with embarking and disembarking in the charge move. (on a 30cm move transport it is a slight increase compared to footslogging kilometres next to vehicles...)

Oh and Engage action. This rule should allow a minimum of 5 cm movement for consolidation move. This way the winner won't get stuck when embarking.



Summa: This may look a bit hacked, but I think would make transport vehicles more comfortable to use, play with and a bit more logical.

_________________
Epic Commander of the Prassium Invasion Troops 214th Regiment
***Action is our prayer. Victory is our offering.***

In E:A you usually move the transport over the unit you want to transport. This way you can measure exactly how far the transport cantravel. It`s not more difficult to move/measure in a zigzag pattern.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Yes in the usual case, both the current rule and my version are easy to go with. The difference may become more visible in an non-usual case, where the transported unit is NOT inbeetween the target destination, and furthermore those units are standing different distances from transport vehicles.

What are the opinions of the other aspects?
-Engage maximum range decrease. (5 cm)
-Disembarked formation engage range possible increase.
-Reality *fagginess* of a transport vehicle max moving getting farther than a transport vehicle max moving and stop / disembark troops.

_________________
Epic Commander of the Prassium Invasion Troops 214th Regiment
***Action is our prayer. Victory is our offering.***