Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Minervan changes

 Post subject: Re: Minervan changes
PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 1:28 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2020 10:27 am
Posts: 186
My EA experience is minimal (2 games with Salamanders in total so far), but I have a Minervan force I'm hoping to take for a spin soon, so I thought I'd throw in my thoughts.

I like the UK Destroyer stats, and I would definitely look to find a way to add a formation of those into my army, especially if they have Scout. I like the idea of including them only a separate formation, rather than an upgrade for regular LR formations.

I have no strong feelings one way or the other on the griffins and hellhounds, but would consider a hellhound formation if it was an option.

Overall, the proposed changes seem designed to add a little flexibility, without making the list drastically different. As I was developing the army, I did gradually add more and more SHTs into the mix so, looking back, I can certainly see the basis for the discussion. I've grown to like the SHT emphasis, but it would also be nice to be able to mix things up with more LR formations from time-to-time.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minervan changes
PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 10:01 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:04 pm
Posts: 5823
Location: UK
Dave wrote:
Everyone else on the thread seems for it, and given we're talking about support formations they're not going to be mandatory. I'm here, I've got an army, and I'm willing to get some games in with the New England crowd to test them out in Minervans, and so is CaptPiett, so why not?

Yep. Anything that moves 1 of the 2 tank lists (Minervan or Ulani) into a better Goldilocks zone seems worth a go, look forward to that bat reps and seeing squads of hellhounds. As you say, people can just choose not to take them.

jimmyzimms wrote:
Except we have a balanced working Ulani list. Just adopt it wholesale. It's been used for years and years.

That list has its own problems – neither Ulani nor Minervan are quite right at the moment. It *is* is balanced list, but it is relatively restrictive and works best at 4000pts, not the move common 3000pt, where the extra points headroom allows the larger russ formations to get full play. My view would be it is easier to tweak Ulani than tweak minervan, but then im in the UK, and this is a NetEA thread, so that's not super relevant!

Quote:
You can't really quantify "seems more fitting" though. If the majority of players want to change it, we can.

Well no it's a game about space dudes with laser guns, so in theory nothing can be, but as other people have posted, you can build a reasonable argument for it. Fair enough, TK made more sense in 3rd ed 40k terms, im not sure that argument has any more weight than the others. Both can be balanced fine, no one has claimed either is OP in either list, but one variant is cheaper and may see more actual play (as with griffon, hellhounds, I see that as a good thing).

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minervan changes
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2021 2:50 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9054
Location: Worcester, MA
Got a game in against gunslinger007 today, and captpiett played berzerkermonkey.

GS's 4+RA saves were non existant, 2 THawks full of terminators took out 2 russes and a hydra before they were wiped out. So a rough game for the wolves... 6 russes, 6 exterminators and baneblades were my core formations, with 2 manticores, 2 salamanders, hellhounds, griffons and 2 tbolts in support/allied.

The hounds and griffons definely came in handy.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minervan changes
PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 11:03 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:24 pm
Posts: 366
Location: Galicia
Dave wrote:
Everyone else on the thread seems for it,


While it is not completely true, as now Scarik is against both changes and some others are not interested in deleting LR companies like they pretty much are with your proposal, that about what you wrote in that part is the main reason I have posted in this topic till now from before that.

As ACs and subACs have written in Taccom before, when there is no opinions against a change is one of those times when the AC should be wary the most, as something must be happening for such a situation to exist.

That's why i have forced myself to take the role as that missing group of persons, and analyze the list to find the downsides this change has as every change always does have, as i wasn't exactly against it before that. Someone had to take it.

So to continue with that role, another i found is that while your first intention was about correcting the fact that LR companies are rarely being taken, the change you propose will make it so they are taken a lot less, like what happens in Ulani. Shouldn't you implement some of the recommendations others have posted to make Companies more interesting or anything else towards that? Giving up on companies from the very start, instead of finding some solutions to it even though that was the first reason you gave for the changes, is strange.

Also I am missing here the whole ''approved lists are stable'' and ''won't see any major changes'' that has been repeated in the forums over and over. This is pretty much the biggest change by far in an approved list since Black Legion's list last big change in 2013-2014 and that list back then was pretty much approved in name only by ERC standards given the frequency, number and importance of changes it had so it is hard to count it for this point.
I understand your reasoning that there is no longer as much manpower as before for a new list, but it is ignoring one of the most basic non-written rules in netEA.

I will continue with the role and search for more things not written here, but i think at this rate it will stop being in my mind a role.

jimmyzimms wrote:
Except we have a balanced working Ulani list. Just adopt it wholesale.


Wouldn't it be faster to ask Tournament Organizers to allow EpicUK lists in general or just Ulani, Squats and Sisters? Manpower nowadays is more limited and that way is faster and achieves pretty much the same. NetEA and EpicUK are just names.
Or do you want to go further and add the netEA options to the Ulani list and mix? Seems faster to me than changing Minerva's main theme in general and in lists being used. If not the fastest one i think would be to, as Apocolocyntosis wrote, improve Ulani, but no netEA options would be there.

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


Last edited by Abetillo on Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minervan changes
PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 3:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9437
Location: Manalapan, FL
Abetillo wrote:
Wouldn't it be faster to ask Tournament Organizers to allow EpicUK lists in general or just Ulani, Squats and Sisters?

TO already chose what's allowed and not really anything we need to ask them to do. I mean the EEC had a mixture of NetEA, EUK, and iirc some E-FR lists last time, no? But yeah having an NetEA Ulani variant wouldn't be bad I feel.

Abetillo wrote:
Or do you want to go further and add the netEA options to the Ulani list and mix? Seems faster to me than changing Minerva's main theme in general and in lists being used. If not the fastest one i think would be to, as Apocolocyntosis wrote, improve Ulani, but no netEA options would be there.


yeah I'm saying take Ulani as a base, add some NetEA options to it, and do some 5 game tests (treating it fundamentally as an 'approved list' already) and call it good. It has some issues, just like Minervans do, but those are mainly around mono builds but when taken together as a gestalt view of all the Guard lists, that is somewhat mitigated. It's almost no effort for a collector to use the same base for field those two list + SL in one go (i painted exactly one more coy of LR tanks and had it covered).

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minervan changes
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:23 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9054
Location: Worcester, MA
Abetillo wrote:
While it is not completely true, as now Scarik is against both changes and some others are not interested in deleting LR companies like they pretty much are with your proposal


I read that as objecting to using Hellhounds/Griffons as a company (ie, core formation).

Quote:
another i found is that while your first intention was about correcting the fact that LR companies are rarely being taken the change you propose will make it so they are taken a lot less


I'm not following that argument. Allowing 6-12 unit Russ formations as core formation means players can field Russes in a competitive way. That means more Russes on the table, not less. That fits Minervan fluff better, and is a good thing I think. I also don't follow how the change is giving up on them? Any list you can build with the current approved list you can build with this playtest list. It's completely backwards compatible.

Quote:
Also I am missing here the whole ''approved lists are stable'' and ''won't see any major changes''


Again, it's completely backwards compatible. The playtest list is giving new options to use under-utilized units and allowing for different competitive list builds using the existing units. I just don't see that as major. Taking away formations, changing special rules, adding a half-dozen+ new units, those would be major in mind. That's why I shied away from the Ulani Destroyer stats, but given how everyone seems for them I'll likely playtest with them and put it forward as well after some more games.

On the Ulani stuff, if someone wants to work on battle reports for them go for it. For me, it's a non-starter because I'd like to play with Russes and SHTs in the same list. My goal with this playtest list was to allow for a Russ heavy build that's as competitive as the SHT heavy build.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minervan changes
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:23 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9437
Location: Manalapan, FL
that's a totally reasonable take, Dave

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minervan changes
PostPosted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 10:42 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9054
Location: Worcester, MA
Got another game in with Coach this weekend against his Dark Eldar. Minervans lost 2-1 in the fourth, DtF & TSNP to BTS. Hellhounds shot some Ravagers to pieces before the Torrmentor stomped them. Griffons did light damage and managed to shrug off a Wych assault with a bunch of CC hits.


Attachments:
20210906_133531.jpg
20210906_133531.jpg [ 1.78 MiB | Viewed 477 times ]

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minervan changes
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2021 8:38 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9054
Location: Worcester, MA
I got two games in this past Saturday, the first was against DwarfSupreme's Knights. Some good early hit rolls from me but DS on the back foot on turn 1. I managed to take out two Castellans, breaking them, as well as a single Paladin. The Errants maneuvered to fill holes in the line.

My Griffons, Salamanders and Hellhounds moved up on the far right, and threatened the Paladins there with assaults and barrage fire for most of the game. Everything else kept its distance from the Errants in the center, mostly plinking off a hit here and there.

My activations started to falter turn 3, and DS took it to turn 4 before the Guard won it with T&H and DTF. A rallied Lancer prevented TSNP.

The Hellhounds won an assault on the Paladins and raced back to deny DS Blitz late in the game. The Griffons mostly sat on a T&H after a turn 1 march and took on 1-2 Knights over the course of the game. The Russ platoons held the line well enough. MVP goes to the Exterminators who scored 6 6+ hits on 10 dice.


Attachments:
20210918_122116.jpg
20210918_122116.jpg [ 1.51 MiB | Viewed 282 times ]
20210918_113111.jpg
20210918_113111.jpg [ 1.56 MiB | Viewed 282 times ]
20210918_105244.jpg
20210918_105244.jpg [ 1.49 MiB | Viewed 282 times ]

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minervan changes
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2021 8:47 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9054
Location: Worcester, MA
I played gunslinger007 later that afternoon, rematching his Wolves. His Terminators preformed marginally better than the first game, but still not well at all. They managed to make it down and break a Salamander formation in assault, but Hellhounds plugged the hole and the next assault again them saw the Terminators nearly wiped out.

The drop was off target, and left three formations looking at a mountain of tanks. Manticores on overwatched burned it and laid BMs and the SC and some Grey Hunters. Tanks advanced and marines marshaled after that. Turn 2 saw some of the lighter stuff breaking but Russes held the blitz and Baneblades held the center of the table. I was unable to get BTS (a lone Grey Hunter hiding in some rubble) but had T&H and DTF at the end of turn 3 (I think, it might have been turn 4).


Attachments:
20210918_153147.jpg
20210918_153147.jpg [ 1.69 MiB | Viewed 281 times ]
20210918_143843.jpg
20210918_143843.jpg [ 1.75 MiB | Viewed 281 times ]
20210918_140940.jpg
20210918_140940.jpg [ 1.54 MiB | Viewed 281 times ]

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net