Mass scouts is the current SM metagame over here. So its being playtested plenty. And its too strong.

To go through the effort of writing battlereports would require the problem being acknowledged by the AC in the first place.

Then an evaluation process decided upon.

Finally battlereports.

You had said you woud try playing mass scout lists. What has come of it?

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

Nothing, decided my 2 games a week were spent testing demonstrated problems and lists I'm involved in

An Ac doesn't need to respond to every hypothetical issue when there is no play testing to back it up, if scouts or flyers is such a problem then demonstrate this problem to the AC through play testing and I'm sure they woukd respond, don't just hijack every thread and never test the problem at all. Be proactive

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Completely agreed. The constant thread hijacking about SM Scouts is growing really tiresome.

_________________
Former Blood Angels Army Champion
Epic Gamers Los Angeles Chapter
Armies Played:
Blood Angels
Black Legion
Codex Marines
Imperial Fists

I want formations of 2-3 available in the BT list so that vehicle formations with attached upgrades can be dropped e.g. 2 Land Raider Crusaders with a Hunter. The BT list has no use for a single THT having no Scout or Devestator formation. If any lists are to have a single one available it would be better to charge more for the the initial one as it'd be a problem at a cheap activation.

Lets test the proprosed THT stats, focusing it as a pure transport through removing it's shooting ability works well and allows their cost to be a bit less than it would otherwise be. If the THT is too good at 100 each - and I agree with you - then just increase the cost, I would suggest maybe 175 for 1, 1-2 extra for +100 each. I'd rather be cautious and start with a fair or slightly high value, that can be adjusted up or down depending on testing.

If a formation of 2 THT is priced at 275 they would be cheaper than a Landing Craft, but for the loss of the shooting attacks and ability to ground attack at all, FF hits and the transport capability. Are you still of the opinion a THT with the proposed stats would be a problem costed like this Matt?

For comparison Epic-UK have a THT in their BT list with 4+ Reinforced and good shooting (4 AP4+ / AA5+ attacks per aircraft) and FF5+ for 200 for 1 and 100 extra for 1 more. However out of 10 BT lists played at their tournaments no was has ever chosen to take any, suggesting it is overpriced even with these stats. It doesn't focus it on being a transport and not a bomber or empty air assaulter either.

Nothing in the fluff indicates that BTs have greater access or use more THTs than codex marines.

If BTs don't have scouts or devastators, perhaps THTs are not adapted to the BT army list, and instead of changing THT stats for BTs, perhaps a better solution is to develop the Storm Raptor for example. Or nothing at all, as Thunderhawks and Landing craft are already quite good as they are.

That would without hesitation be my preferred choice.

Now, if you want to hurl around mobs of land raiders, whats wrong with the Landing Craft? Is it not good enough? Is it not balanced enough?

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

Probably more of a discussion for the Black Templars thread but given that they are a fleet based crusading army (less likely to have titans support than normal) the epic BT list has been developed and themed as an airbourne army with more air options than in the codex list. Thunderhawk Transporters have been in the Templars list for several years and that definitely won't be changing. This isn't about the BT in particular anyway, the THT is now in 4 or 5 lists.

Many of us have models for Thunderhawk Transporters and would like lists to use them in. It has advantages and disadvantages and a distinct place alongside Thunderhawks and Landing Craft.

THTs have models and should be used.

The specific needs of one list should definitely not define the THT stats, and moreso, not RE-define them.

Multiple THT formation are clunky, hard to use, and cause substantial in-play issues, as their models are so huge, it is impossible to use NetEA rules on multiple formation screens with them in countless playing situations, which require players to create special conventions for them.

However, this still does not justify nor explain why you would change their stats from the Scions list. Nor have I seen a single battlereport on why the proposed change brings any solace to the THT conundrum.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

If the sort of extreme lists that are being are possible and can be demonstrated as being OTT it hints at a problem with list design rather than a problem with "ass hattery".

It's like the "don't be a dick" addendum in the aircraft LOS rules. The yes it's possible to position an aircraft so that only selected units are within LOF but, "don't be a dick". That hints to me that there is a problem in the aircraft rules (which many times appear to be an afterthought in this game) rather than problems with the player (Note: I'm not condoning this just pointing out a problem with the rule system.).

You should expect in an environment with a competitive ethos that players will attempt to maximize their potential to achieve victory within the confines of the rules. In a friendly game I concede that a different level of expected behaviour can and should prevail. But in tournaments I would fully expect cheesy/beardy/broken armies to be involved it is the "cost of doing business". I think that when these lists pop up, so long as their perceived OTTness can be demonstrated, we should attempt to minimize their impact. The this is a game for adults/don't be an asshat/dick defense holds very little water as far as I'm concerned. If its possible within the confines of the rules then its possible. If this then proves to be problematic from an enjoyment stand point then, as epic is in effect a living game environment, we should as a community fix the problem. I see your "don't be an asshat" defense and raise you the "hate the game, not the player, playa" riposte.

These extreme lists have popped up in the past and have led to army lists being changed. Remember the scout drop pod list which led to scouts no longer being allowed to use drop pods, the Eldar jet bike rolling assault list which led to the AS of jet bikes being decreased and the Tau Tetra/Piranha list which led to a points increase for the recon formation. I think the thunder hawk problem has been an issue for some time. I think I remember TRC posting about it a while back and I think I remember seeing him play his infamous 13 TH's and a Landing Craft list at the club. I'm a little uncertain though if the problem is as egregious as the Scout, Jet Bike and Recon lists though. All I can say is to those who consider it a major problem provide evidence don't just theory hammer. What may be readily apparent to you may not have occurred to others or some other additional as of yet unconsidered factor may be at work. For instance if we consider the early Tau play testing several groups were reporting varying levels of success and satisfaction with the list and it was not readily apparent why this was. However, as these groups all posted battle reports/AAR's it was noticed that not all groups were playing with range stretching, which was a major factor underpinning Tau list design. This would not have been apparent without bat reps/AAR's as all groups had assumed they were playing in the same way. So please post some bat reps so we can evaluate the extent of the problem.

As an aside and not wanting to derail this topic, as regards Black Templars I'm not sure where the idea of them as an air assault list came from. Surely based on the fluff they should be the space craft/drop pod list with a few thunder hawks thrown in and the Hawk Lords chapter should be the air assault list. I don't think the epic black templar list does a particularly effective job of capturing the essence of the fluff.

Correcting the THT has zero to do with the needs of any particular list and all to do with the representing the unit properly, which the SoI stats never did. Multiple other lists had refused to use it with 5+ Reinforced but the unit can be consolidated and made the same across lists. Hena and yourself will grumble but the majority is behind having a 4+ Reinforced Armour Thunderhawk and it's now a case of testing and balancing it. Altering an approved list isn't ideal, but it saves having different stats for it there compared to the other lists that use it. There are pluses and minuses to it but overall it is unlikely to have a significant effect on the SoI list.


The epic aircraft rules weren't written in a way to allow for carrying a unit split between multiple aircraft. It's really not a big deal or very hard to fix though, in the notes for the THT in the BT list I just put "The entire Thunderhawk Transporter formation is counted as one War Engine for the War Engine transport rule (e.g. one transported formation can be split between multiple aircraft within one Thunderhawk Transporter formation)". Simple and easy. Yes they're big and formation of 3 takes up a lot of space, but that could be a disadvantage in many situations where you can't fit in where you'd want them to land or where it's hard to hide them behind terrain.

How do you know?

You are the only one (apart from the recent Dobbsy intervention) to have mentioned a wish for the THT to change.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

Well then let post a poll

_________________
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!

Because of many peoples comments and support when it has been discussed, with the majority in favour. Hena's under-armouring it was always very controversial.

It was has been statted as 4+ Reinforced in the Horus Heresy and Epic-UK lists already and it was 4+ Reinforced in the Black Templars list in the 2012 Compendium too, before I took over the list.

At this point I have no strong opinion on either stats or points costs of the THT's as have yet to use them or even face them across the tabletop. What I do have an opinion on though is the simple fact that can have multiple stats across several lists (I can accept SLIGHTLY different points costs in different lists to represent their rarity/availability). I hate it.

It is very confusing as a newish player (having only sporadically due to regular EA opponent moving city a few years back) to see same unit with different stats in different armies.

Pick one set of stats with a standard points cost. Then if individual lists need to tweak points cost up/down by 25 points for balance/fluff reasons, so be it.

So put up a poll with 3-4 options of stats and points costs, and get all AC's to agree to accept the poll winner as starting point for all lists. Then if playtesting shows a need for change in stats then change the stats for all lists at the same time..... Or just put the AC's in a room and don't let them out until they have all agreed on common stats!!



James

_________________
My TOEG- Blood Angels and Deathbolts
My Painting Blog- Evil Sunz, Goffs
My Epic trades list

Ok after further discussion with Matt Shadowlord and Onyx and a few others this weekend at Cancon, the points can go up to 250 points for 2. This is where the Scion list has them costed so it's a base starting point. We can adjust as more reports come in.

Are people OK with +100 for a third?

Good call on it being 250 for 2.

After the discussions I'd actually make it 125 for a third, think that's a fair cost, but could always drop it down to 100 if it proves too expensive.