Moscovian: Just because you don't plan to edit the list for 6ish months, that doesn't mean we shouldn't start taking note of the issues in the list and suggesting solutions.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Incidentally I played a 2000 point game against dark eldar with salamanders. They were all horribly killed bar the super heavies. Didn't really seem worth a batrep

_________________
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

EDITED OUT SNIPPY COMMENTS

You should be applauded for producing Raiders, as you have been, but the release of Raiders doesn't mean the lists are ready to be finalised.

You need to find a way to keep the stormhammer in the list, otherwise it's a kick in the face to those people who have spent a very significant amount of time converting and scratchbuilding them. It'd be unfair to them to remove it at this stage, as people have a reasonable expectation that models that were put into print will remain usable.

You can't have it both ways. Either the lists are near-complete in which case you can't fairly remove the stormhammer, or they aren't, in which case you need to open them up for development.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

In all fairness, I had been up for 24 hours straight before that game

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

It appears that you want people to use raiders so much rather than an external playtest file that you'll deliberately put a hold on development rather than listen to what people are saying.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

EDITED OUT SNIPPY COMMENTS

I'm sorry, but we differ on the importance of batreps. I have little interest in them, and feel too much attention is placed on those reports, which compromise maybe 1% of the games that get played with the list. Just because a unit acts well or fails in one game, that is not an indication that it needs changing. What matters are results over time, over dozens of games. That isn't represented in battle reports - it's represented in the majority opinions of those who use the lists. I've played dozens of games with necrons, and probably 20 or so with dark eldar, yet my opinions are worthless unless I write up every game I play?

Far too often I see people justifying changes or lack of changes based on a single battle report. That's just incompetent. If I were to write a battle report of my last game, it would appear that Vessels of Pain are rubbish, since they spent the entire game broken and did nothing. However, in the longer view, taking all my games into account I find them a fabulous unit, and one of the strengths of the list. Individual battle reports are a dangerous way to assess units.

EDITED OUT SNIPPY COMMENTS

Please don't take suggestions for changes to the lists so personally, they're not intended to devalue the work you've put in, just to suggest where we move on from here. Not all of us are content to wait.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Sorry about the batrep thing moscovian, ill endeavour to write detailed reports with and without stormhammer operations for all future battles.

_________________
"Stars in my pocket like grains of sand."

www.spartangames.co.uk

I agree that any of the above could be a suitable solution; My personal preference would tend towards upping the points cost.



As to my dropping out of the project, I didn't get as much done on Raiders as I'd hoped to when we began for a number of factors (Including a job interview process lasting months which hit my contributions to Raiders hard, plus other hobby projects such as editing "Firebase's" Specialist Games section) , and a lot of what I did get done (Formatting the story section for example) was later discarded as the file format wasn't usable by Moscovian.

Eventually I became frustrated with my own inability to contribute usefully and backed out, handing over the Minervan list stewardship to Moscovian on the understanding that I could take back the championship at a later point if I felt able to devote the nessesary time to it.

As far as I'm concerned, that's my history of involvement in Moscovian's very impressive Raiders project to date, and I feel honoured to have been a part of it.



I shouldn't have to post this message over again over again.  We're all adult enough to read and comprehend English and I can only assume moving forward that failure to produce a batrep with an opinion to back it up means either:
1. You don't care enough as to what kind of change I make
2. You are lying / exaggerating
3. You are trying to blatantly irritate me
4. All of the above

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I have always been open to changing the lists in Raiders.  Note that the Warp Beast was not a change, it was a correction.  With that said, I have no issues changing the lists, the units, or both.  But I have more to consider than a handful of people who want things changed now.  When making changes I have to consider the following:
1. That people have made a monetary investment in the Raiders books they've purchased.  
2. There is time/money/energy/resources people have invested in their custom built models.
3. That most Epic players don't participate in this forum.
4. That any update should be easy to print off and understand.
5. That the changes I make are indeed necessary and making the lists better.
6. The time/energy it takes to update the lists, post them, justify and defend my changes, etc.
7. The fact that most players DON'T LIKE having their army list changed frequently.

As for your game play, I do see value in you playing them.  I am glad you like the lists.  I am thrilled you play the armies.  I think your models look superb.  If you never posted a battle report EVER it is still great that you are playing them.  Thanks!  So you play the Minervans.  You think the Stormhammers are overpowered.  Okay.  I already have heard that.  I already agree with that.  How overpowered are they?  What brought you to that conclusion?  What do you think I should change it by?  How did you come up with that change?  Do I change the range?  Reduce the number of shots?  Reduce the armor?  Increase the cost?  Some mixture of change?  

Going forward, if you really want to help, try posting some specifics about your games.  Mini-batreps.  Something to round out your position.  I don't disagree that some changes need to be made but yours is not the only opinion and I need to be able to balance the concerns of as many players as I can against the numbered concerns above and my own intuition.  

I am willing to make changes, but before I state what those changes will be I need MULTIPLE suggestions from MULTIPLE people playing a VARIETY of opponents.  A batrep, a mini-batrep, ANYTHING that specifies why you think the changes.  As more information comes in, I will give as much information as I can as to what I think we need to move towards.  Ultimately, these lists will be changed, but NOT UNTIL MAY 2009.  

It doesn't mean you have to play with them as they are.  Just like all lists in Epic, you can do whatever you want.  Long before the rules revision this year, people were playing the core lists with their own house rules based on their experience.  If you don't want to participate in the playtesting process, then I can't stop you nor would I want to.  Just have fun with it.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Having tried playing with/against IG, SM, Orks, Black Legion, L&TD and Cadian lists am currently trying out AMTL list with Colin aka Kleomenes. However once we have got a few AMTL playtests out the way we were also planning on playtesting the Minervans.

Apart from Stormhammers being potentially overpowered is there anything we need to bear in mind when playtesting Minervans?

What would you describe as the strengths/weaknesses of Minervan list vs standard IG list? I mean you can make a very strong IG armoured list using vanilla IG list in rulebook. I have 2 companies of Leman Russ, some SHT's and mechanised company which can field using rulebook list.

Apart from access to variant leman Russ/SHT's which I cant currently field with my armoured regiment unless ignore WYSIWYG.

Any advice to a Minervan newbie would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers

James

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

Essentially, the minervan list provides more flexibility as a heavy armour list, but less flexibility in other areas. Variant super heavies and russes, as well as a non-infantry Supreme Commander, mean it is capable of much more customisation than the steel legion armoured list. You can focus more on short-ranged heavy firepower, AP, AT or MW/TK as you see fit.

Other upsides are the same as the steel legion armoured list - decent armour, multiple DC and reinforced armour all round make the list very solid. High volume firepower and decent FF values allow for effective attack and defense.

Downsides are usually low activation count, inability to use cover and low model count.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Moscovian and I have agreed to remove the more personal comments from this thread. Apologies if sections of the thread make less sense now.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

For anyone who got caught in the crossfire I apologize.  I do stand by my positions and I will not change the schedule, but Zombocom is right... I have let some of MY personal feelings affect how I reacted to this latest criticism.  It does the forum no good have me biting people's head's off regardless of whether or not I think I am right.

So let's try this again, shall we?

What specific changes are you suggesting and why?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Problems that Scarik and others have pointed out is creating a variety of lists.  I haven't seen this since I have a variety of Russ tanks and SHTs that allow me to mix it up quite a bit.  However if you are stuck with only the basic Russ tanks you may be hard pressed to come up with a fresh list.  Scarik's position at the start of this was similar - he just didn't have any interest in the other varieties.  

My advice comes in two forms:

Regular game play: Avoid the Stormhammers.  There are issues that - without going into the details - never got hammered out and as a result that unit is a favorite.  Consider it like a Warp Spider Aspect Warrior; it is overpowered compared to every other unit of its type.

Try to keep your activation count high.  And to do that you are going to have to protect your weaker formations.  Salamanders and lone SHT's can be targeted easily if you aren't careful and you can find your activation count (and your position on the board) suffering come turn 3/4 when you need them the most.  


Playtesting: If you have the models to play, by all means try the Stormhammers.  In fact, it would be really helpful to play the Stormhammer, then replace it with another SHT and do the same shooting sequence.  Compare the two and post the data on the forum.  The more information we have directly comparing the SHTs the better.

Try min-maxing the Russ variants to see if certain ones are overpowered in big numbers, or perhaps too expensive, or too weak.  

I hope this answers your questions.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.