Honestly I think the single weapons LS should be drop completely. Only the Tornado (AC/HB) and possible the the Typhoon 0-1 per Support Formation. I like the AB having MM or HB. I didn't think about the Garrison part so I guess no T-Hawk.

Attack Formation: 4 Bikes, 2 Attack Bikes, 2 Tornado~350pts
Support Formation: 5 Tornado(Upgrade 0-1 Typhoon)~200pts

Five speeders in a blister and Five speeders in the normal SM Formation. I don't understand??

I think Dev's and Tac's should have the same weapons options. Maybe normal formation with up to half able to upgrade to Plasma version for free?

_________________
My NetEA Lists:
Fir Iolarion Titan Clan List
Dark Angels List

Always looking to Trade!
Angel's Trade Thread

I've said my piece on the Fearless Termies.

Ravenwing Support - I would probably not take this formation.  The benefits of Ravenwing do not offset the problems of the mis-matched weapons.  The longer range weapons might provide an occasional "pot shot" situation the formation would not otherwise have but it's still going to be most useful in the same role as a basic SM Speeder formation, which is 25 points cheaper (with the MW/MWFF making up for the greater firepower in the RW version).

Deathwing Landraiders - Non-Fearless transports with Fearless units means the transports are just hackdown fodder.  Between that and giving up Teleport, these would have to be dirt cheap before I'd consider taking them with Terminators.  It's not quite as bad with Masters taking them as an upgrade, but the issue is still present.

The transport capacity is funky as well.  Is the purpose to use them for the "1 spare transport slot" build like a Razorback, e.g. Tacs + Master + LR + 3 Rhinos, 6 units/7 transport slots?

_________________
Neal

I personally think fearless termies will come down to activation count as the fearless only comes into play if you are, well, losing.



I did consider this (and BL did as well). It does currently match both the blister pack contents and the 40k fluff. Is it simply a case of being 200 for 5 to be attractive? Note they would have originally been costed in the codex list as a 235 point formation.



True - but they are 750 for the formation with a character and can take hunters. A NetEA codex formation would not have the 4 fearless chaps and clock in at 850, the whitescars at 725, the scions at 550/725, the BT at 600/800. They seem to be in the middle, with 4 feareless stands.

Is the issue more with the cost of mechanised terminator formations?


Yes its meant as both a small boost (swap out a razorback) and something highlighting there is a important chap there. Plus the addition of a big white 3rd edition land raider to a formation looks neat

_________________
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

TRC:  I don't think the cost is terribly out of line overall.  The problem is that because hackdowns go on the transport, it will virtually always destroy the mobility of the formation.  A normal formation has a pretty good chance of maintaining its mobility if you get 1-2 units hacked down on a lost assault.

_________________
Neal

So effectively here having fearless is a disadvantage as rather than terminators dying its their land raiders?

_________________
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

In that I think it increases the chance of eliminating their transport, rendering the remaining transport ability worthless, yes.

_________________
Neal

Any progress or playtesting BL or TRC?

_________________
My NetEA Lists:
Fir Iolarion Titan Clan List
Dark Angels List

Always looking to Trade!
Angel's Trade Thread

I think it may be wise to consider the epic list in terms of what it can do instead of trying to fit in 40k equivalent rules.

I think the Deathwing Terminators with Land Raiders issue falls into that. All Fearless or none Fearless.

I also have an issue with the Ravenwing Formation. Yes it fits 40k but it's a mismatched formation. Attack bikes are rarely used in standard marine lists but this list forces 2 and 2 Landspeeders giving a split in formation purpose (plus inherent LV disadvantages). The bikes want to get in close with good CC stats but the attack bikes and landspeeders want to hold and shoot. The formation fits the 40k view but isn't focused enough to do either of it's roles really well.

There are a couple of things I would consider.
1) Formation size of 4 bike stands, attack bikes and landspeeders as upgrades. Ravenwing units get a "May always Garrison" rule. Almost certainly will result in never seeing a full formation of 4/2/2, probably see 4/0/1 or 4/1/0.
2) I quite like the idea of something different like making the formation focus on shooting and firefights like swapping the bikes CC and FF values around. Don't know if it would help though.
3) Ravenwing support becomes identical to the standard marine list. Forced inclusion of Tornado and Typhoon isn't in 40k and doesn't help in Epic so why include it here.

How have your games been going?

I've only been able to test the EpicUK list, using a thunderhawk full of devestators.
The plus points is its very high firepower, breaking a leman russ company in a cross fire.
The downsides are that it costs 800 points (same as 2 thuinderhawks full of bikes), needs another formation for the whole crossfire bit and unlike an air assault after the attack the infantry are all within 5cm of the thunderhawk which is not ideal!

So after all that I think the plasma tacs have a less dramatic impact and is a tactical change that might even make them more attractive.

_________________
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

But, but here is I think a rare occurance of 40k having some neat formations (maybe the codex writer had Epic in mind! ).


Certainly many words typed for a formation that has seen less games than vindicators


I like mismatch formations for several reasons
1 - Real life battlegroups are 'mis-matched'. It is however game rules that make that rubbish. For instance its common in WWII games to have armoured cars as recie units. Of course they are spotted as tanks not infnatry in most systems and therefore hidden infantry do them every time. Sticking a flak jeep into an Epic infantry formation is asking for bm's, rather than matching the keeness many soldiers have for the odd rapid firing technical hanging around.
2 - They aren't optimised. This means they can do more, but not as good as specialists. This achieves 2 things, a) they make specialists have a roll and b) ensure the formation cost doesn't have to be jacked up to account for thir optimal use (witness assault marines that are costed solely for thunderhawk insertion).
3 - They can match the background and original intent. Beleive it or not but attack bikes were seen as fine to start with, have one in a formation, lay those bm's and so on. Its just marine bikes are so damn good and the cheapness of scouts and speeders combined with the desirability of single type formations means no-one mixes.


Whether or not they are standard choices is somehat irrevelant and is a function of army optimisation instead of background. Doesn't matter if most armies are composed of tactical marines, in Epic you would much rather have a host of other units.



Great, its an all rounder. Rather than march, assault like a regular bike formation it can double, shoot, summon terminators, assault.

It is only the Epic rules that make mixing these units bad. If Epic shooting was done on a unit to unit not formation to formation basis the formation would be better. However if having these inefficiencies means the price can be controlled, great.

It is supposed to be an independent formation that hares off on its search, so integral firepower makes sense.


Actually will result in nearly always seeing them in thunderhawks as now they would have to be costed in line with that function (like assault marines). Stil the garrisson bit is nifty when facing Eldar


What would be the reason?



I have it from our 40k bible (BL) that the ravenwing support formation is 3 basic speeders, 1 tornado and 1 typhoon after upgrades. And it matches the Epic blister pack contents.

Again its not optimised but recon wise its a formation but can't provide support over every needed range band.

_________________
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

Good reasons all round. I do disagree with the speeder composition. Yes fully upgraded the formation is 3 Speeders (default weapon is a Heavy Bolter though), 1 Typhoon and 1 Tornado however I think the 40k SM speeder formation is very similar. The epic Formation should not be based on the fully upgraded squad, in 40k I don't have to take Tornadoes or Typhoons in a general SM list or a DA list. That's why I think it should be 5 Speeders with 1 upgrade option of each type.

Edited to add new stuff below

There is one other reason for the upgrade option instead of forced. Getting a Ravenwing Formation brand new and shiny from GW is horrendously expensive and has a huge amount of unusable models. The core Ravenwing Formation requires 2 Bike Formations and 2 Landspeeder Formations. That leaves 4 Bike stands (12 Bikes), 6 Standard speeders and 2 typhoons that you can't use. Ravenwing speeders with upgrade options at least would allow you to get another formation using those 6 Standard speeders and 2 typhoons.

Not a problem for me (Even though I have no attack bikes at present, I keep getting thwarted on certain online auction sites, I'll get some eventually) but something to consider. If I was just starting I wouldn't buy 4 formation packs just to run the Ravenwing formation, I like them but not that much.

In general its best to add a new post with the old content and delete the old one or people don't know you have posted changes

You have used the same arguement but in one example its good the other bad

Land Speeders come in that composition in the blister packet. Its actually the cheapest way to get it (a regular speeder formation requires 2 packs to be bought I believe).



Here its apparently bad getting multiple packs You could use the extra as Blood Angels.
but yes, no conducive to buying from GW, but how many are now doing that as their prices are just silly silly now?

So yes, guilty for making it trickier for non horders and ebayers to get into it. Maybe I should give one free attack bike to everyone showing evidence of making a DA force


A simple alternative I was reminded of on the ground pounder thread is the 3 speeders 2 bike 'scout' formation. But it seems a little bland. Plus I have a couple fo hundred speeders of various types I am keen to use

_________________
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

I've used it twice now and it seems ok.

The standard speeder tactic is to double up, fire, support.
I did the following numbers prior to using them, in practice they were slightly better as turn 3 took a blitz and stuck a shot on a broken remnant killing it. Assuming MW is worth 1.5 of a normal shot
Standard -
-1 to hit 15/12 / -2 15/24
FF 15/6
Raven -
AP  -1 21/12 / -2 21/24
AT  -1 13/12 / -2 13/24
FF 13/6

So how would you feel about them as a 200 point formation? Now too cheap?

_________________
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

Ok have managed to play a few quick 2000 point games on vassal, though with only 1 managing to be finished and not left to hang. I will try again, maybe tomorrow to get a proper 3000 point game in.

Ok, I think the hunters should be 75 points 2 allowed or 50 points one allowed for a formation, both is too much and I hope a typo not me losing my mind

Terminators at 400 with fearless are too much. I've come round to the EpicUK view and the views expressed here on having them non fearless. The formation can still be led bya fearless character, but fearless is largely wasted on them. It pushes up the cost for an ability which is important if you are losing, but that cost increase makes for less activations or upgrades overall and isn't good, plus removes problems with Land Raiders

Caliban preds are renamed Predator Eradicators

So that would be something like the following, what do you think BL/others?

_________________
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

Edit - a further change could be to make the pred formation annihilators and eradicators and the vindicator formation vindicators and pred destructor's as those two groups seem balanced against one another? If the eradicator is better than the annihilator then the pred formation would be just annihilators?

Something like

_________________
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