No there are more void shields on the Minoris before a potential save because of the way hit allocation works on units with as many void shields as DC. You ignore six hits before you hit armour on Minoris, and you only ignore 4 hits on a Reaver before you hit armour. What you say is only true if you are shooting with many weak units rather than a few more powerful ones, so it's a situational which is better. And given it will be hiding at the backfield it isn't likely you will be able to target it with multiple small formations. Plus Minoris are regenerating 3 rather than 1 shield each turn for the Reaver. (Edit - I should also say that the Minoris are easier to suppress though).



Since 2004 we have been balancing lists between 2-5k, and many larger powerful formations (titans, tank companies, upgraded formations etc) are probably not optimum choices at 3K where each activation is even more important. You don't solve that widespread systemic issue (if it is even needs solving) by artificially lowering the price on one powerful formation like this so it then becomes overpowered for its points. The issue of larger formations being less optimal at smaller points levels, if it is an issue, is outside the scope of a single list design.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Righto champ, I just asked a question, I'm not bringing your clearly superior Epic skills into doubt. I am well aware I'm not at your level.

Re-reading the top of the thread, it seems it's only the clp quake combo you have an issue with? If overpointing it (compared to other minorus builds you seemed to feel were ok) is the solution, doesn't that skew the list too far? At what point is it better to just deny the clp?
I am actually asking. I'm looking for design insight here. Trying to see where it's heading.

_________________
I know how this one ends
So bite your tongue if you can't tame it

Yes CLP 3 strong Quake Cannon Minoris is only formation I thought was markedly underpointed.
I don't think the CLP should be denied - the AD Mech has it, Iron Warriors has something similar, just needs to cost enough points like those units do. Those things may also not be optimal choices at 3K, but that doesn't mean you auto-lose by including them either. A limited number of expensive formations are still doable at 3K - plus you need something as a BTS, and fearless units with shields and armour on the backline are excellent for that.

I think others formations that showed up in this game might be ok or a bit under or over by smaller amounts but I can't tell from a single game or comparing stats with already approved units.

I will say the Minoris are weird units. Void Shields equal to DC has some strange effects on how you need to tackle them. You could easily waste a tonne of firepower from shooting or firefight with zero chance of damage on a tonne of rapidly regenerating shields, but if you can concentrate multiple formations attacks or close assault them they will die quickly enough.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

If we can take a step back here for a minute, let's just see how it plays out at 100 points for the CLP. We don't lose anything by trying it and I suspect it won't be worth the points just due to how it synergizes with the rest of Skitarii and how it actually performs on the table.

I'm also wary of taking too much from comparing units between armies. This kind of discussion came up early on with Hypaspists and Demi-century where one member was adamant that the demi-century needed to be as expensive or more expensive than a fire warrior detachment. That wasn't the right call. It also came up comparing the Avenger to Eldar aircraft and that's how we ended up with them at 225 points, a point cost where they consistently underperformed despite their significant arms.

We can take general ques from comparisons between lists, but at the end of the day we have to look at how units work as part of the list they are in to determine pint values. In this case, the 2x quake +CLP has been a sticking point for a very long time both in AMTL and later Skitarii. We resolved the issue last time by changing the CLP rules for AMTL and by limiting the formation to 2 minorus for Skitarii.

Greg has been making a case for the third minorus for a long time now, but with that available again, we've opened up the Quake+CLP can once more. To bring this back around, if Mark wants to give it a go at 100 points, why not. Maybe he's right and it's costed well, or maybe he's not and we have an outside point value to work from.

_________________
-Vaaish

It's really hard to determine an appropriate cost for the CLP - a CLP with one Quake cannon is good, a CLP with 2x Quake is great, a CLP with a Apoc launcher is mediocre, and a CLP with an Inferno Gun is just weird. Perhaps introduce three different CLPs, for Quake (eg +50), Quake x2 (eg +100) and Apoc launchers (free)?

Inferno can't be taken, battle Titan weapons only.

_________________
-Vaaish

You can take Infernos on Reavers and Warlords, along with CLPs.

True, but the clp in amtl is fine, the issue us skitarii and they can't use scout weapons

_________________
-Vaaish

That is something that i have noticed time ago, so now that it has been mentioned i take the opportunity to ask, could you tell why? It doesn't look like the usual concern of too cheap WE goes here, and if it were would be worse on the Warhounds, and using Scout Titan weapons on the Ordinatus is fluffy too.

_________________
Sculpting Orks thread
Statistics of games for OGBM v.3 list

It's been a long time, but IIRC it was partly to focus the skitarii on the big titan weapons, partly to remove the spammable TLD, Partly to keep them from having cheap IC arty with the CLP, and partly to reduce the variants of Minorus to test.

_________________
-Vaaish

Then that means that when it gets aproved there won't be any obstacle into considering them in back. Looking forward to it moire.

_________________
Sculpting Orks thread
Statistics of games for OGBM v.3 list