Morgan Vening wrote:
The problem with the no-leader Leader, is that firstly, it doesn't appear it's paid for (50pts for +1 AP/+2AT is something I'd pay). The second is the ridiculous levels of BM needed to suppress, turn to turn. Yes, a Devastator Squad with a character does the same thing, but you change the dynamics of the formation when you're required to pay for the character, including paying for stuff that may not be useful.
Gotcha. However, from what Matt mentions in regards to your vassal games the LF spent a lot of time "shot to bits". Does this not equate in terms of suppression? "Ridiculous levels of BM needed" is the same for all marines so LFs are no different and LFs are only 4 strong plus trans. As you say "the same as Devs with a leader". While Devs paying for a character does the same thing, the dynamic is usually a Librarian added from experience and the Devs are still actually getting something for those points whether or not it's felt "useful" as it all depends on the use of such a Dev formation. The LFs don't get this option which does in effect reduce what they get. e.g in an assault (being assaulted especially) they don't get the extra MW attack and the LFs become slightly less useful when making an assault. It's a bit of a trade off. In other lists Leader has been costed as around 25 points (character minus weapons etc which do have to be factored into a cost). That's where I based the cost for LFs to begin with.
Anyway all this said, I do hear your concerns and I'm keeping an eye on this. I'm not adverse to their cost perhaps rising 25 points once I have more data and info coming back but their size and stated "being shot to bits" makes me think 300 is a fair costing atm.
Morgan Vening wrote:
Then there's the Long Fang Spam. While I know Tacticals tend to be meh in the core list, that doesn't mean they should be in the specific lists. As it stands, Matt's "1GH + XClaw + X+1LF" list seems to be the way it'll happen.
Yes agree and understood. I'm considering an adjustment to the structure regarding this. I'm just trying to work out a way to do it atm.
Morgan Vening wrote:
And those Claws will be Sky or Swift, because BloodClaws are priced out of reasonableness. Same cost as Grey Hunters, worse Init, worse FF. Same cost as SkyClaws, worse movement. Skyclaws lack Rhinos, but move as fast without them, meaning the tradeoff is +2 crap Units vs Unhindered.
Ahh now this is good feedback for a playtest list. Knowing that BCs are over priced in view of the other formations is something easily dealt with. How would you see them costed personally Morgan to see them used more?
Morgan Vening wrote:
The biggest problem I see with Grey Hunters vs Long Fangs is that Grey Hunters suck so much in comparison. The main reason for Grey Hunters seems to be ThunderHawk Assault, which SkyClaws are better at (Initiative not being a factor, there).
In terms of post assault rallying however what would the effects be though? 1+ marines rally far better than 2+ and I'm not sure how Skyclaws will wash up in a following turn once they take some BMs etc. GHs at least stay effective longer if they are rallying better and they have a better FF stat which gives them a much broader use.
I'm not shooting your theories down Morgan just looking at them from a different perspective and trying to find an alternative for GHs. As I mentioned I think the list structure is a better way to limit LF spam -if that is actually a problem - as all other marine lists can do it and it's a cornerstone of a fluid Marine list design. But again, you're right. Why should GHs be under-used like Tacs are? It's the thing I'm trying to sort out but I don't believe adding LFs to them is the answer, personally - that just sounds like a cop-out to me.
Morgan Vening wrote:
As for the Long Fangs, there's also a fluff background issue I have. The background I've read tends to suggest that the reason for the increase in per capita Heavy Weapons, is the heavy decrease in Marine numbers. Looking at Lexicanum, I see the following.
"Each squad is unique in that it doesn't ever receive reinforcements, making the higher level squads smaller in number compared to the lowest Blood Claw pack. Many Blood Claw packs start with as many as fifteen marines. However, losses take their toll, and by the time a Blood Claw squad reaches the level of Grey Hunter, normally only 9 or 10 are left. As they age, further losses limit the squad sizes of Long Fangs down to just 5 or less."
Not sure how accurate that is with the current fluff (GW retconning is my major pet peeve), but if accurate, that means that a BloodClaw Formation is 2 packs, a Grey Hunter Formation is 3 packs, and a Long Fang Formation is 4 packs. Compared to the 2/3/2 of standard Marines. It's already heavy disproportionate without taking into account LFSpam.
In regards to the fluff, I've already gone part way to including the reduction in numbers as they're still only 4 strong in terms of infantry units. Epic obviously has limitations vs formation sizes so you really can't be smaller than 4 and be effective. The up-gunning is the fact that the LF are deadly accurate with their heavy weapons and the fact they have more per squad also contributes to this.
Going by the theory of bloodclaws being most numerous, again, I'm constrained somewhat by the ATSKNF design. It would be great if Blood Claws could be bigger packs (upgraded etc) to represent their numerical majority, but as I already mentioned, large marine formations as a basis is not the way I'll be going so BCs will stay at 6 units. They're already bigger than Codex Assaulties.
hello_dave wrote:
You could equally well say the same about any other marine chapter, I just don't see it as one of the space wolf 'traits' that an epic list should reflect, it works for the Salamanders and gives them a 'thing' the wolves already have a ton of things, and don't need yet another imho.
Yep agreed, I'm just looking for alternatives for GHs. BTW the Salamanders prefer Multi meltas not melta guns, so SWs with MGs isn't a huge stretch and so doesn't step on the Salamander territory IMO. But like I said, it's just a brainstorm right now.
hello_dave wrote:
Can I ask why not the replacement idea? One of the things I struggled with (however briefly) was the fixed SW formations, they're more of a 'warband' than a codex chapter (where the infantry formations more-or-less reflect company structures) so why wouldn't Long Fangs, Grey Hunters and even Blood Claws be fighting together? Being able to swap a few stands in and out via upgrades seems to me to give a more representative feel whilst keeping the formations relatively small.
In terms of mixing unit types, I'm pretty sure it's been shown over time that it isn't a popular choice and that it doesn't work that well as you often end up with units in a formation that don't contribute situationally (e.g they can't reach b-t-b when the rest of the the formation is FFing etc), rather than an "all-in" approach.
In terms of replacement, it's something I would prefer to stay away from
at present. I'm not
absolutely against the ad-hoc idea. However, as I mentioned above, it seems like a cop-out to me when other avenues can be explored first. Remember, I'm not rushing to finish this list. I want to get it right and changes will be made over time. So, don't worry. If replacements are the way to go then that is the change that will be made
in the future after exhausting all other means first. Of course that said, if it becomes incredibly apparent that it should be done earlier then we can do that too. I'm just not quite convinced something else can't be found first. All I ask is for folks to bare with me - and also
do some play testing (not just you dave; everyone interested in SW) as that is incredibly helpful when you want to sway me with your arguments - I am open to change with this list as I've shown so far with several adjustments from the original 2.0.
