That wasn't the argument.  "No practical use and an unnecessary special rule" was the argument.

_________________
Neal

Being able to use Commander without the 5cm restriction IS useful under the right circumstances.
Is it unnecessary? Well if it is really unnecessary then it wouldn't hurt to keep it either.

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

I agree that pricing based on those "sweet spots" is possibly a viable approach.

I missed that you had restricted basic LRs from upgrading so you can't do 0-6 with the LR formation.  0-2 is available with any of them.  You can do 4-6BP with the Whirlwind formation.  You could still technically do 0-6 with Terminators if you were willing to give up the transport ability, right?  I see the FAQ, but there's not actually any restriction in the army list against it.

It just feels fiddly to me - buy upgrade, then upgrade the upgrade.


and

Out of the three of us that have reported the most playtest results, we have 1 good use and 2 that were less than optimal.

What's the ratio on that?  Can we attribute, say, 30 games between us?  That would be 1 in 10 games it's been used and 1 in 30 that it was effective.


Unnecessary special rules are a distraction.

_________________
Neal

But in practice its usable with teleporting terminators and land speeders being called in to support a tac/dev attack. But in both cases why not attack and retain? Slightly increased risk, but at same time you do the bm to the target prior to assault and you save 25 points getting a redeemer instead for the marine formation.


It was because including them in the general upgrade led to some odd formation - assault marines with 2bp attacks and stuff.

They weren't laytested so to limit variables made separate and kept to land raiders, terminators and whirlwinds.



Still better than Vindicators I'm not against it being dropped, I think it makes no different either way.

_________________
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

Well the wording of the Prometheus special ability isn't THAT confusing, isn't it`

But then in Wh40k the Prometheus lost it's comms ability (only the Damocles Rhino kept it) instead it gained a "Battle Auspex" which reduces enemy cover saves by -1.

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

In that case, I'd be fine with it as a variant instead of the super-command tank.

_________________
Neal

I too would rather see the command ability go onto a Damocles Command Rhino, and have the Prometheus as 'just' a variant.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

@Hena: The specialability of the Prometheus cancels the coherency requirement (= that all formations which take part in the combined assault have to be at at least one unit 5cm from a unit of the initiating formation).
The only coherency requirement is that AFTER the assault the formations have to be within 5cm of each other (so that they look like a single formation in coherency).

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

Yes i meant after the assault move. So we actually talk about the same  

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

Personally, I think the Prometheus' special ability is interesting, appropriate, and simple.  I think it should be kept.  

In regard to the idea that the tank should be retained but the ability removed - that's silly.  The Prometheus' special rule is simpler than most.  It's simpler than the actual rules for the tank itself.  

In regard to the idea that the tank should be removed wholly - again, I don't see why.  If it's not a very effective option, cut the price.  If the ability provided is never worth it, well, that's a bit of an issue, but nobody seems to be in a rush to fix Dreadnoughts, Vindicators or any other options that aren't usually worth it.  Personally, I like the look of the option and would take one with my Captains on the chance it might be useful.  It's an option with real potential, and I'd much rather have it along and not use it than not have it when I wanted it.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Only want to share this  new cover artwork for the 2nd Salamanders novel from BlackLibrary
http://www.nickkyme.com/wp-cont....024.jpg

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

Reupped the current V 1.11 Salamanders army list in the first posting.

And concerning the discussion in the NetEA Army Compendium Space Marines DRAFT thread regarding the odd 75pts cost for the Supreme Commander instead of the usual 100pts here: viewtopic.php?f=69&t=18260&p=356227#p356227

I quote myselfe from this thread:






So the question is:
Should the cost remain at 75pts? Or readjusted to 100pts as all Space Marines Supreme Commanders?

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

I'd choose to keep it the same as all other marines for simplicity across the lists