Ok, I'll correct that.



I cannot refute your comments, however it is very clear that "something" was intended and there is very clearly an entry for the Tauros allowing this transport. Frankly, this is a bigger deal for 40K than it is for Epic. Since the Valk and the Sky Talon are essentially the same vehicle for our purposes, i.e. they transport something, then exactly what FW intended isn't that big an impact on us.

For the time being until they (FW) FAQ the entry, I will leave as is. I don't see it having a significant impact on our play.

But you do bring up a potential inconsistency in their list.

Cheers,

_________________
Remember Taros? We do.

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Ok, the updated 3.1.1 list is in the first post. I tried to get all the edits etc in there that were brought up. I'm not perfect, so if I missed anything, I'll get it next go around.

All changed items are highlighted in blue.

Play on!

Cheers,

_________________
Remember Taros? We do.

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

So as Commissars are an ordinary upgrade i can put 1 Commissar in each formation for every 500pts?
Is it per 500pts of the formation or of the army?

Seriously just use the NetEA Imperial Guard Commissars rule and remove the Commissar from the upgrade section.

And you can swap Tauros for Tauros Venators for free? Why should i ever use a Tauros if the Tauros Venator's Twin Multilaser is superior to the Tauros Grenade Launcher but every other stat is identical to the Tauros?
Also remove the word "Squadron" from the unit entry as the stats are for a single vehicle not for a Squadronof vehicles.

Still no need to add "180" to the Rear Fire Arc of the Marauder Destroyer as the Rear Fire Arc is always 180°.

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

I have a couple of questions that i have not seen challenged in any of the elysian lists-

1) How do you suppose to mitigate the problem whereby a player takes 8 drop troop companies with valkyries in a 3k list?
32 valkyries is a disgusting amount of disruption shots... It's a nasty popcorn army situation, and i know people will do this given half the opportunity.

2) Also wondering about drop troop company upgrades, there is no option to give them valkyrie transport if the parent company has valkyries, so can only teleporting companies take upgrades?

My suggestion to limit the popcorn is to limit drop troop company transport upgrades to half of the drop troop companies chosen, rounding down (ie, your list contains a regimental hq and 4 drop troop companies- 2 of those companies may take valkyrie transports)

Really though, you could still take 4 drop companies (2 with transports), 4 storm trooper companies, 2 transported drop sentinel companies for 28 valkyries / 10 activations though... That is still a hell of a lot of disruption shots, it does not sound balanced out.

Given we have a Tourney coming up, Yes I am thinking about it. Best thing is with this army, while it will take some hits, you should have enough BP's that disrupt to screw somebody's largest unit, and then I will pound it with everything I have left, just to kill it.



Would love to know the answer.



I am not sure for comptetive play it is balanced. There are some lists this will struggle against. But it will hurt a whole lot more.

Remember this would allow nothing else to be taken. 8 activations in a 3k army is to few for an effective popcorn list. As for the Valk spam, which potentially is a problem, consider this. this army would have no effective antiarmor firepower. The troops have no heavy weapons, and the Valks have only an AT6+ Multilaser to offer. The Rocket Pods themselves could offer two AT5+ templates at the cost of half a formations shots, but the pods would do relatively minimal damage against a well dispersed armor formation, at well inside the enemy's own engagement range. In exchange for 4 AT6+ and (say) 5 Russes covered by the templates, or 3 hits (1 Kill), you would have to expose yourself to two turns of battlecannon fire, and one of Lascannon fire, for an average 13 hits in return (a destroyed formation, crippled before it even got in range). Adding Vendettas would increase your AT power, but mean the Disrupt spam would be more manageable.

It would also mean that you would effectively throw away the BTS condition, as you would have 8 identical 360 pt formations



This is intentional, to force a choice of bringing toys or bringing Valks. It was apparently found in early playtesting that allowing upgraded formations to take Valks allowed an obscene number of Valks, and therefore Disrupt BPs. It became a nonchoice of whether to take Valks with larger formations. The choice of Disrupt Pods in smaller, more fragile formations, or none in larger, mure durable formations keeps things internally balanced.

_________________
SG

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

By the time youv've pop up attacked, hit and disrupted those tanks you dont need to kill them because youve broken them. The problem is that you can keep tag team breaking then shooting at the broken formations for two turns which will be a really annoying army.
it's not a gentlemanly army or tactic or much fun. but people will do it.

Hmmm I am not yet convinced.

I often play with disrupt, once a unit is broken, then really bad things happen. That is the point of so many disrupt pods, you don't need to kill, you just need to hit. Blast markers do the rest.

But I will get back to you on this after another game.

Another point is that the EUK Vanaheim Air Cav list allows 36 Valks in a 3k Army (1 Air Cav. RHQ, 6 Air Cav Coy., 1 Air Cav Coy. with Trooper Platoon). It has, as far as I'm aware, not proven abusable through several tournament showings.

_________________
SG

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

Honda,

I've been digesting the list as I would like to bring it to the next tourney, however there are some problems I see.



The removal of the support sentinel is annoying. This is Epic after all and having unit options is nice. Elysians are already limited and you've made it that much more difficult. This is mitigated by the new units, but I it's still annoying for collectors and modelers who now have units for no army.

An obvious choice could have been to leave them as upgrade options for infantry units as you did with the Drop Sentinels. Doing that would allow you to put the original armament back on of AP5+/AT6+ indirect (or no LOS required). This would address the over-power issue of having 2 x AP5+/AT6+ per unit and the spamming issue the original formation had simultaneously). It also would have made the army look cooler (which is a factor).

I understand what you are saying but I just don't see there being a need for two Elysian lists anymore than you would want to Minervan lists. Given the limited unit choices there is no reason to limit the list even further.




There is no reason to take the Tauros, ever. Venator and Tauros have the same speed, assault figures, and armor. Given the armament of each and the fact that they are identical costs, you've made the Tauros unit completely obsolete. One needs to be more expensive than the other (15 point increase? That's off the top of my head). speed of the Venator means that the transport option is unnecessary, which removes that as a balancing factor.



I don't know about the balance issues of the weapon load outs, but the fact that you can arm yourself with AP is a plus. That was difficult to do before. It was either assaults or AT weapons.

I don't see the mortars being addressed at all. Internally they are still not balanced against the existing upgrades. Fire Supports are 25 points each and are equipped with 2 x AP5+/AT6+ at 45cm range. Mortars get 30cm of range and hit with an AP5+. The lack of LOS? Hardly a motivator at 30cm range.

The problem you are face with is the Support Squads are stuck, which means you have to change the mortars. You can't make them any cheaper unless you want to make them a standard unit for a Drop formation (1 Commander, 7 Drop Troops, 1 Mortar). Before with a Blast Template at least you had the chance of popping multiple units which made it slightly more palatable. You could possibly return that option and just state that they only hit AP. It's a one line exception to the unit and doesn't require much thought. The max a player is going to get is AP5+ at BP2 so the effect is the same against a well placed enemy, and worse against an enemy that is bunched up. I know we're trying match up with other lists but after playing with these I think the mortar stats given before are goofy.

Lastly, the idea of offering bolter upgrades (or a bolter unit as a standard for a formation) was left out. Given the fact that these infantry formations spend most of their time suppressed to the point of having zero shots, an extra ranged weapon might allow them to drop a BM on an enemy here and there.
--
Regarding spamming Valkyries.
I don't see the Elysians surviving with an 8 count activation. That plus the range on Valkyries is 30cm. Turn 1 would be tough, but turn 2 would be witness to the vaporizing of the Elysian player en masse. I'd like to see somebody pull this off. Right now you're theory hammering.
--

I'll be keeping an eye on this list- I'll see if we can get some playtesting done if not by me by members of the club I game with. If it irons out well in the next few months, I might just be producing some CAD figures that could be used as proxies for sky talons, vendetta upgrades, and buggies depending on what makes it into a more locked down document ;-)

Been crazy in the Real World ™ , so sorry for the delay in responses.

Ok, first off regarding the 8 DTCs and the possibility of Disrupting all opponents off the table in a tournament, let alone a single game.

a) Is it possible? Yes

b) Has it happened yet? Not to my knowledge, but should it become a problem, then we’ll adjust. One of the gaming tenets that I hold to for list changes is “Show Me”. If there is a problem, show me. Demonstrate that the problem exists through results that can be duplicated by others in typical game conditions.

Why do I add that last bit?

Because it is the execution of a plan that really determines whether or not an idea is solid. If all it took was to come up with a plan, then we'd all be speaking German or Japanese since around 1943. So do go through the full exercise, and not just once.

c) Is it a lot of Valkyries? Absolutely. However, do try out the list first to find out all the things you are unable to do when you go all in like that. It may surprise you. If you’re not sure what some of those things might be, take a look at my recent battle report against the Tau and find out what “can” happen when you don’t take any aircraft.

Now for the fun part of the show. I knew this was coming, it was just a matter of when.

BTW, Moscovian and I are buds, so he can slam me around all he wants and I know it’s not personal, I’m just fiddling with the object of his affections.

Also, locally we were kicking around an idea that I’ll just float here regarding Tauros vs. Venators. It is looking like the Tauros may end up with Disrupt on the Tauros Grenade Launcher. Without drawing swords, let me know what you think.

And now to the meat…





As quoted from Spectrar Ghost, this effect is intentional and was outlined as a reminder in the first post in the Design notes section.




So a couple of things here.

1. I agree this is Epic and all that it brings with it. However, I also laid out tenets for this list design that right from the beginning. Originally, I was very clear about adhering to IA3 Taros as the design framework for which the list would be developed from. It is the source material. I did that specifically so that when questions came up regarding list content, there was solid material to fall back upon when it came down to making decisions.

I am doing the same with IA8. I intend to apply the same guidelines to the list so that we all know the framework from which decisions are based. It’s how I have chosen to remain consistent. Not everyone agrees with that decision. As it reflects on the Elysians and what they fight with, it seems as though FW intends to provide this army with different looks to reflect changes in their modes of operations. Some of that is just making sure they are consistent with what Dad (i.e. GW) is doing, but at the same time they are flexing the boundaries to an extent and presenting different images. However, they are not doing anything that any historical gamer wouldn’t understand, that is, armies evolve over time. They learn things while fighting. They figure out things that work and things that don’t. They change, because remaining static if often times fatal.

Now, how does that impact us? I believe that means our list will change as well over time. I already know that when IA 11 comes out, that there might be something that has to be adjusted from the new story (involves Snow Cadians, Elysians, and Eldar). What does that mean for us? I don’t know yet other than there will be a possibility of change.

I did not drop the Support Sentinels arbitrarily. I know that decision not only affects the list, but also the collectors and modelers. I’m not trying to be capricious or vindictive, only consistent.



I am offering to create what I am thinking of as “Campaign” sets, though that is still up in the air as to how that will be accomplished. The point however, is to allow the modelers to not have to sideline miniatures, though I’m not sure that really has to happen considering how prevalent “counts as” is in Epic.



I agree with your point and want you to consider the proposal above. It is my intention to make the costs of the two vehicles similar and to provide different capabilities. We’ll see how that goes.



I agree that the solution is not perfect. Locally, we have had discussions on this as well and have not yet arrived at the ideal solution. I like what they do now better than before, because of what they simulate, which is an ability to prep the enemy for an assault.

The current settings are not in concrete, they’re just where we’ve landed at the moment.



It’s not very likely that I’d increase the size of the basic formation. That would allow for another Valkyrie and I think from previous testing, the general consensus is that 5 Valks with Disrupt is too strong.

The other possibility to entertain is just adding the Mortar to the Commander. Something to think about.





Understood. What they are not at this time is overwhelming, which is important to me.

I say that because we need to make sure that the introduction of Vendettas, Punisher Vultures, the buggies, and more Drop Sentinels do not introduce imbalances. Those are the big rocks right now. If we get those changes integrated into the list and not mess up how it plays (i.e. slightly weak), then it will be much easier to come back and address some of these smaller rocks that bring everything together.



I’m not going to say no to this, but I will say not now. As stated above, we need to make sure that the big rocks all fit into the glass (that’s a prioritizing strategy you can look up), then we can revisit this. So in corporate speak, that item goes into the parking lot for later, along with Mortars.



I foresee offers of marriage, or at a minimum hard cash should you undertake such an endeavor. I would offer that things that FW is selling now are probably a pretty good idea of what to target.

Also keep in mind that FW apparently does not intend to add to their AI inventory.

Cheers,

_________________
Remember Taros? We do.

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Jim, I am feelin' the love!!

I understand the desire to make things match the campaigns, but once again we're not dealing with a Steel Legion list. We're dealing with a list that has about 1/3 the number of unit types. Make no mistake, any change made to the list put out by Forgeworld was driven by one thing only: Money. If you think differently I've got a healthcare plan to sell you (wait, nevermind ). With that said...

Perhaps the focus should not be on making campaigns with distinctive army lists, but one comprehensive list from which several campaigns can be drawn.
Ex. Campaign A: has the following unit restrictions and special rules.
Campaign B: has the following unit restrictions and special rules.

Normally I would say this is going to cause problems, like with the Tau. But the Tau had a gigantic list of unit types and finding internal balance between them all was darn near impossible. Elysians have nineteen units and that includes the new ones you added and spacecraft/aircraft.
--
As for the mortar suggestion, I meant to say 1 Commander, 1 Mortar, 6 Drop Infantry for a total of 8 units still. Although the same suggestion could be made of bolter units. Those would be 30 AP5+ too. And I happen to know Otterware exists for such bolters, so availability would not be an issue.
--
I'm still not taking the Tauros, even with disrupt. The only way I see people even considering the Tauros is if there was a point difference or a major change in the armament, like an AA weapon. Not saying AA is justified, just giving an example.
--
Mortars... I truly am not trying to bust your chops, but you have to do something quickly with the mortars. It -like the Tauros/Venator relationship- is a no-brainer. In fact it is worse. A playtest game is the only place you will see them fielded because nobody in their right mind would ever choose a 30cm AP5+ weapon (indirect or not) over 2 x 45cm AP5+/AT6+.
Possible solutions:
Lower the price on the mortars - 2 mortars for 25points? In bulk it might be worth having up to 6 new units, all firing 30cm without LOS, for 75 points. If that is too much, it can be 3 mortars for 50 points or some other combo.
Blast Templates - give them back a 1 BP attack and simply note AP only on the datafax.
Make them part of an existing or new formation type. As I described above, a standard unit in a drop company.
Increased range. 40cm would make them more palatable. Not enough by itself, but maybe in conjunction with other changes. This was my original idea after all: a 20cm range, 40cm indirect, no minimum range on indirect fire.

This is just a brainstorm idea and I have no idea what the implications of such would be, but how about a Drop Support Formation that would be 'heavier' equipment? (assuming we can fix the mortar unit)
Heavy Support Company
6 Mortars, 2 Support Squads, 2 Support Sentinels.
+ ranged fire that can support existing formations
+ Avoids the need to balance the costs of Support Sentinels and Mortars as they are part of an independent formation
+ Large standard formation that would be great as a core alternative
+ Gives a home to Support Sentinels
+ It complements the assault oriented Droop Troop formation that also allows for Drop Sentinels.
* Limited range (45cm max)
- Wouldn't be able to bring Valkyries due to size
- Would not stand up to assaults as well
- No Commander unit
- Still susceptible to enemy fire (infantry with poor armor and LVs, not exactly a powerhouse)
- Susceptible to assault (relatively poor FF and CC values)

Allowing for this type of formation would also give us a work-around on the supression issues that plague the Drop Companies. While Drops would still have problems with collecting BMs, supporting Heavies could still manage to to shoot something. Bad players would watch them evaporate as they flew solo. Good players would use them in concert and hold their own. They would be logical garrison formations. They would also not add anything to the Elysian list that we don't already have.

Edited for typo-tsunami

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

BTW the Mortar Squad really has to be 2 x shots. After all the unit has 3 x Heavy Weapons (Mortars in this case) same as any other Heavy Weapon Squad.

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

I think you know me better than that to think that I believe that changes only occur for altruistic reasons. Of course, they make changes to increase revenue. I'm glad that they are still around after all this time to still do that. I wan't GW/FW to be wildly successful businesses so that ten years from now we can be "discussing" support sentinels in the Oreo VII campaign.

However, I am not going to rush into bad decisions.

I intend for the development to address the big rocks (as outlined in the previous post). When the list feels settled enough with those changes, then I want to spend time focusing on the other issues. My perspective on Mortars, HBs, and even Support Sentinels is that they are not the focal points for ensuring success to the list. Will they have a part to play? Possibly, but they are not going to wag the dog.

I know you have invested heavily in them (i.e. Support Sentinels) and there's nothing wrong with that, but this list is not going to be about the SS. It is about combined arms, mobility, and solving problems that other lists face without all of their tools. That's what is attractive about Airborne/Air Cav lists. They can do things that other lists can't, but at a cost.

So, those issues are on hold for right now until the larger framework gets settled in.

Cheers,

_________________
Remember Taros? We do.

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment