|
Rug,
Mate cheers for the proposed updates, whilst I rarely comment in the IG sub-forum I watch it closely behind the Space marines. Onto the changes.
Baneblade:
I think the change to 20cm is ok, as you pointed out in the baneblade discussion it was probably the simplest of the proposed changes to implement. 20cm is not too fast, its just faster than walking infantry and on par with the Leman Russ tanks so no real issue there. In fact, I'd like to see the same potentially on the storm hammer as it, and the baneblade, are essentially the MBTs of the SHT line. Whilst the others are tank hunters or assault guns laden with titan grade weaponry, so its makes sense for them to be a tad slower.
What troubles me though is the no critical = destroyed. This does not make sense to me, and I feel its a step too far away from the established precedent of most DC1-3 WE being killed outright on a critical.
Storm Trooper & Chimera:
Sound decision, matches with 40k options, and particularly useful since the flyers are somewhat hard to acquire nowadays.
Emperor to +1:
Doubt this will have much effect as space craft aren't taken that often unless its linked to a drop force. If the proposed change to slow & steady ever gets up (can come on from turn 2) then this may have a larger impact but as you point out above, a battle barge already has similar capability and it is by no means an auto include in tournament SM lists.
Bombards to 15cm move:
Interesting direction, and on reflection I like it. I would have thought the obvious decision might have been a range increase to 60cm, and that would have been supported to some degree by recent 40k/imperial armour rules and stats but I think this alteration just might open up some alternative play styles for the IG. Our East coast Australian meta sees a lot of RHQ + Tank Coy + SHT coy builds or similar mech focused combination of companies and support elements. Bombards are almost never taken, and neither is the infantry company on foot.
As an IG commander, garrisoning bombards will be useful for the effective range boost, but I don't see OW being particularly useful often. I want my arty on sustain fire. If someone is dumb enough to move a large infantry or mech/inf formation into LOS of a unsuppressed bombard detachment on turn 1, they deserve what they get. More likely, the units my opposition will send into LOS to rough them up are either teleporters, who are hard to deal with at the best of times, or some scout/screen force which isn't worth the firepower of what is likely to be one of my two or three arty elements.
However, to protect my bombards in their new forward position, I'm more likely to consider deploying them in support of my own scouts or potentially even protected by a dismounted infantry company with attached AA as a forward, cheap static firebase that needs to be dealt with if the enemy wants to operate in their own deployment zone safely.
I could ramble on but in short, I think it works. It may even open up the list design some, away from pure mech lists we regularly see. I also think the 5+ armour is also completely fine, given the bombard is often based on a leman russ hull anyway.
Hellhound:
I see what your trying to do, I think the wording of the "inspired" rule could be tidied up some to clearly indicate that they grant +1 regardless on the number of units with "inspired" in the formation. It may also help to name the rule something further away from "inspiring" to reduce the confusion, especially with those speaking/reading English as a second language. Perhaps "terror weapon" or something like that would work?
Tank Sqn to 150:
Again these are rarely seen, the change probably won't change the meta too significantly as IG players regularly seemed more concerned with activation boosting at 3k, rather than upgunning already solid company choices. In saying that, there are some advantages to attaching these to mech infantry companies both in firepower and positioned well, they can be used to soak up the first 3 hits of shooting or assault hits with 4+RA rather than a 5+ or no save.
Anyhow, hope this feedback is of use. Please reaconsider the baneblade critical removal, otherwise I think your ideas are generally sound and will hopefully see the dust blown off a few models in people's collections.
Cheers
*Edited for spelling & grammar
Last edited by ortron on Thu Aug 13, 2015 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
