I think garrison is going to bite you in the rear with WEs and is useless with Valdors (which are a no brainer for this list). Since they're already able to garrison it would dissuade people to go defense bonus route. Coupled with the ability to put sniper on them with offensive option would further dissuade people I expect. I'd pick something else, perhaps that's where INV would be better?

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Just so we are on the same page, you are meaning that people wouldn't use the defensive upgrade because they could get the same effect with the offensive one using Valdors. You're probably right, though garrison seemed like a good way to show the defensive nature.

So you'd see more like this:
General: leader, walker

Offensive: Character gains Sniper and Inspiring, formation +EA

Defensive: Leader, TRA and Inv

Of course I think you could argue any options other than the general one would benefit Valdors in a defensive role. Maybe allow garrison but reduce the speed of the formation by 5cm for defensive? Perhaps we need to up the price of valdors too. say 550-650 points? That would help to counterbalance the no-brainer aspect.

_________________
-Vaaish

But +2 EA per tank is a pretty big boost!

And letting AV:s garrison is also a pretty big change.

I just think that it can be too powerfull. A 5 tank unit that dishes out 15 FF attacks at 4+ or even 5+ is pretty scary.
Combined with a dropship that can drop the whole formation anywhere on the board you got a real beast...

On another note. Woulden't knights fit into this list. They are AV:s right?

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

On paper it is, but in practice you end up with around 1 hit per tank, average in armor saves and its a pretty marginal upgrade that's easily circumvented by running into base contact with the vehicle. We could do just one weapon extra attack which comes to around three hits for a 5 tank formation too but I think that might be too little to be called offensive.

Also, Av units can already garrison. The restriction is just they have to move under 15cm or have scout. The only thing that can't garrison normally is WE. The only change here is that any formation with the character that is AV or We could garrison.

Knights have been kept fairly separated from the main mechanicus lists and I don't see them showing up here.

_________________
-Vaaish

You're reading me right. I think your costing for them is way off though. I thought I posted it earlier but the established cost for the 3 types of tanks are
Executioner is priced at 375 for 5 using raiders costing. It is considered overpriced by many (including EpicUK) which I agree with. However synergy of 5 in a formation might make them attractive.
Valdor would be 425 if using Vraks as a guideline
Vanquishers are the most expensive at 475 (again using tank legion as a guide)

or were you including the price of the leader in that?

I don't see any issue with INV howew. I think it reflects weird arcane tech, servitors, tech rites, and other stuff well.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

I'd originally taken the compendium list and added 200 points for all executioners (ignoring the limit the list imposes) which came to 625 and divided by 10 to get 62.5 per tank for executioners. After that I took the vanquisher and did the same coming out at 82.5 per tank. That seemed a bit low for executioners with MW and the range they have and a bit high for the Vanquisher seeing you still deal with more armor saves. So I split the difference and went with 75 per tank regardless of what option was taken.

That left me at 375 for the Russes for 5 tanks (originally I'd put 275, bad late night math ). Figuring in that you'd get around 8 formations in a 3k game, it seemed a bit much for everything with 4+RA and 60cm MW cannons so I bumped it up to 450 as a starting point since that would leave you with 6 formations in a 3k game as a theoretical maximum and we'd have room to adjust based on performance and other list considerations.

Valdors were simpler math. 250 for three comes to around 82 points each, figured 80 points was a good number to work from and five came to 400 points. Again 50 points added on for good measure.

I'm now thinking that perhaps 400 for the russ formations and 500 for the valdors would be better seeing the valdors have considerably more utility despite the slower movement (it's opposite my group since we tend to put more value on mobility and slower units tend to be difficult to position) with everyone's comments.

_________________
-Vaaish

Yeah I had done something similar too.
Took the base 42.5 per Russ from Minervans lists and added 20 to be the base Executioner. Multiplied by 5 and rounded up to the next multiple of 25 so fair enough.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Ok, some minor clarifications:-

• When calculating the 1 character per 500 points, does that include the points spent on allies? From the way the thread has been going, I would presume that it is.
• Tech Priests are in addition to a Supreme commander - in the same way that Commissars are additional.

Given the way you are going with the costings etc, it would be simpler to say that all Cataphractii WE and AV formations get a Tech Priest - it is likely to be effectively the same thing.
Perhaps you could also explain the rational behind making all the Tech Priests the same type.

On the abilities, I also agree with the others that some of the suggested abilities are excessive and should be toned down.

• Hymn of reforging is Ok
  Walker should be Ok and strikes a nice balance between offensive and defensive capabilities.
  
  
• Augmented Targeting Cogitators
  - Giving the character Sniper and Inspiring is probably OK
  (though I would equally suggest mounting the character in a suitable model to achieve the same effect).
  - Giving every unit EA+2 feels excessive. It sounds like you are suggesting that each formation trebles it's assault capabilities.
  
  I would suggest extending the range of main armament would be more in keeping with your theme and also less excessive - perhaps an additional 15cm?
  
  
• Aegis Mechanicum
  - Leader and TRA for everything is probably OK. You might even consider giving the Leader an EA+1 FF capability.
  - I agree with others that allowing everything to Garrison will also prove excessive. This is one of the reasons behind specifically prohibiting WE from garrisoning and its power was demonstrated by NealHunt many years ago before the number of formations starting on OW was reduced. In his case a whole lot of big gun formations garrisoned forwards and shot the £$%@ out of anything that moved. You risk the same thing here.
  
  Perhaps it would be more in keeping with the theme to provide free emplacements for one formation of AV (not WE) that can garrison forward?

Formation costs definitely need addressing; for example in other IG lists Russes are established at 65 points each, or 325 for 5x units. You might argue 350 given the activation advantage of smaller formations, but 375 is definitely too much.

I still think you're going hugely OTT with all these special abilities and requiring a new special rule to applying them across the formation rather than just the unit. Plus it's inconsistent and inappropriate for the Catapharcti to have these significant boosts if the main Skitiarii list doesn't have them too - they would have equally as many (if not more) Tech Priests.


Walker really is a significant boost, normally tanks won't generally move into terrain, but with walker they will stay in woods/ruins if at all possible to gain the -1 to hit. White Scars advantage is Walker and they pay somewhat extra and miss out on a lot of options of the codex list to have it. I really don't think it's appropriate for an Ad-Mech tank army to move through cover so easily. Not having units that can occupy ruins/woods is normally a disadvantage of a tank army to counterbalance it's advantages. How are you imagining them to be better at the difficult terrain anyway? Huge dozer blades? Legs?

I'm very against the potential for TRA across the board too. An opponent needs to be skilful with maneuvering to crossfire and takes a risk by getting close enough, but it's an important tactical element of the game (that it would be a shame to prevent) and a good way for a normal army to deal with tank armies.

Correct, it's calculated based on the total number of points in the army since that's usually determined before the list is constructed. So you get 6 in a 3k list regardless of if you spend 800 points on allies.


this is correct.


Not exactly, there is still a limit to the number available and you'd usually have more than 6 formations that are eligible in a 3k game. The point behind characters was that they could be killed and weren't the same as a blanket SR for the army. If we want to have characters and go the same route as commissars then we should follow the limit to the numbers as well.

Having the characters as an upgrade is also a bit simpler on the summary sheet since I don't need to do a character tank variant for each formation combination.

As for all being the same, we'd discussed using this to help shift the play style. You can't do that if everyone mixes and matches whatever they like. Making them all the same reinforces the function of each type. heck, I'd be fine with just dropping it down to the base Reforging rule and leave it at that.



I don't want to get into extended ranges. Most units already have 60-75cm range to start with, do we really want to see tanks rolling around with 90cm range? We can drop it to +1ea, but we'll find that doing so makes it do little to shift the play style of the list.



We can drop the garrison function and just leave it with TRA.



I'm lost here, where's the 375 coming from? and the russes we are using aren't standard I figure they are worth around 75 points each due to the nature of the MW shot and heavier vanquisher armament.

_________________
-Vaaish

We can still just go back to the original concept for this: a simple mechanism to show the mechanicus field repairs of the vehicles and help reduce BM accumulation in an army that is based around smaller, easier to break formations.

However, whatever the route we go, these won't bleed back to the skitarii list. In a fluff standpoint, yes all of the skitarii would have tech priests, but in creating different lists we have the ability to be more selective in what aspects we emphasize to create different experiences.



Failing a dangerous terrain test doesn't literally destroy a vehicle. It can range from throwing a tread to getting stuck to hitting a tree and damaging the weapons or falling over a cliff. Basically whatever causes the crew to abandon the vehicle. Since it's already been argued that walker can represent just about anything you feel is appropriate, consider it the tech priest either performing field repairs that fixes a broken track or tow capability to pull units stuck free or more exotic means.



Crossfire is just one tactic a player can use and just like certain armies can effectively deny victory conditions and you have to plan your strategy around that, it falls to the player to deal with formations using thick rear armor. Besides, I can already field an army with only thick rear armor using all warlord titans or even a marine force all decked out in land raiders. It's expensive, yes, but it's possible so I don't see your statement as a valid reason not to allow TRA so long as it's priced appropriately.

_________________
-Vaaish

No, i think having different charactersisway better then having a blanket rule for the whole army. It's also more fun because it means the opponent can try to take them out (adding a tactical choice for them) and that yourself needs to worry how you position them.

I still think Inv save feels way better than TRA. I agree that giving out TRA to everyone will kill some of the tactical advantages that a mobile army has over a slower opponent. I think that should be avoided as much as possible. Also Inv save is way more fluffier than TRA if it's supposed to show a force field that the techpriest puts up.
And reading the other responses i think most of us agrees with this.

Te best thing would be to be able to choose each character so you could assign different formations different roles i think.

Maybe just a defensive and offensive option? Defensive being leader and inv save, offensive being Inspiring and snniper on character and the rest of the unit gets +1EA each?
But please let us choose which one to use for every single formation.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Doing this doesn't shift the playstyle of the army which is what we are trying to accomplish. Basically we do that and you see all valdor formations with defensive and everything else taking offensive. That doesn't shift the play of the army at all, it just focuses things so they are all better at what they were already doing. Mix and match is out.



Dropping it down to just the base and an upgrade option for offensive style would be alright. I don't mind trying +1 attack either.

_________________
-Vaaish

I'm very concerned you don't think doubling or tripling a formation's firefight attacks is a big upgrade; it's a massive upgrade, especially considering your core formations have FF4+ anyway.

Be as concerned as you like, but don't overstate the facts. The Vanquisher does indeed have 4+ FF, but both the Executioner and Valdor are 5+. Remember there are NO standard pattern russes in this list. Second, I don't expect the entire formation to actually make it into Assault. There may be times that it will, true, but I'd expect that most times 3-4 tanks would actually be left in the formation by then.

On average, with the upgrade, that amounts to around 1 hit per tank. So we can expect a formation of four tanks to cause 4 hits. Of course, that doesn't amount to 4 kills. Without the upgrade, the tanks would average 1 hit which effectively makes them useless for Assaults.

I guess instead of EA we could just grant the formation MW in FF. It would at least ensure one kill on average.

_________________
-Vaaish