The proposed changes results in only a savings of 3.3% across most of my lists, which are heavy in Tank Companies and Arty Companies, as well as Infantry Platoons. It probably won't be game breaking, but sould be tested nonetheless.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

This argument has been used in the past, across several games systems, and it's for the most part, a fallacy.

If I was forced to take the more expensive formations, it might have an impact. But having an ovecosted formation is the same as having no formation. If I'm going to be punished for taking a Leman Russ Company, and I'm not required by the list to take it, then I just won't take it. And I'll play the cookie-cutter army that already does well.

As long as there is care taken in the price dropping of unused formations (so that they're BETTER than the existing good options), it's not going to increase the strength of the list. It's going to keep them on the same win/loss percentage, but with those armies being more diverse.

Some of the lists that do well have certain builds that work. As long as those builds aren't made better, modifications to formations that show up rarely, if ever, in a competitive situation, then it's just adding diversity. The choice of multiple Attack Bikes, Predators (pre-fix), Land Raiders and/or Vindicators shouldn't be seen as a concept that's noobish/not serious.

The purpose of external list balance is to make sure that each list is relatively balanced against each other. The purpose of internal list balance is to allow almost any combination of formations to be competitive.

Morgan Vening

If these changes are considered a good thing, will that have implications for other lists (Minervans etc)?

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Looking at the changes being made here, i agree with them overall - though Onyx has already pointed out in our forums that some playtesting might be good.

I do wish the "ST's in Chimera" proposal wasnt being sidelined though. For all the reasons listed in GlynG's thread.

Another thing-
Why is it an Emperor class Battleship that does the bombardment? The Emperor is a carrier craft, with secondary weapon batterys. The Retribution class Battleship seems a better fit - its a dedicated weapon/lance battery ship that seems more in line with dropping lance strikes onto the battlefield.

Just a thought.

Tee

The standard is 2 points of weapons battery per BP of bombardment, or 2 Lances per pinpoint.

The Emperor has 8 broadside and a total of 10 F/L/R Batteries, for 8 BP of bombardment. The Retribution has 12 broadside Batteries and 3 F/L/R Lances for 6 BP of bombardment and a pinpoint. Thus the Ret would essentially trade an OB Template for a Pinpoint. Not a bad trade, a bit more versatile but a bit less intimidating on the OB front. Still, probably the purview of a variant list instead of SL.

Edit: OT, but anyone know how much a Galaxy-class landing craft can carry? If you were to do a variant list with a larger variety of spacecraft, and Galaxies to drop from ships with Launch Bays it would be interesting.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

The Emperor has 16WB, giving it 8BP. The Retribution would thus have 6BP and 1.5 Pinpoint attacks (likely rounded to two). That's not actually THAT big a firepower increase. Most of the Retribution's improvements are in its range and speed, not its firepower. SG ninjaed me, but damned if I'm removing those valuable seconds of double-digit math!

I suspect the Emperor was chosen because everybody used to take Emperors, while the Retribution was less popular, so everyone would HAVE an Emperor. But that's just a guess.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Ahh ok, thanks guys. Its been a while since i've played BFG and the exact figures were a little hazy for me.

Great debate so far.

As a player who loves optimising army lists for competitive tournament games, I have to weigh in behind Evil And Chaos on virtually all his views because they are almost a carbon copy of my own analysis of the current SL list.

Amongst the formations that appear currently overpriced are the artillery company (one of the worst choices in the game at 3000pts IMHO), Leman Russ co, the upgrades for mounted ogryn, griffons (who even takes them as an upgrade?), hellhounds (less dramatically overpriced), and leman russes. That's quite a lot of units, without even starting on things like the spacecraft and the warlord and reaver.

The changes suggested are pretty mild and might be able to add some variety to people's army builds without rocking the boat too much - although the Artillery Company remains a pretty crazy choice

Onyx suggested some playtesting, which is essential no matter how minor the changes are, and I'd be happy to help with some of that.



That no longer exists; it was reduced to 'fluff' and Ogryn can now travel in Chimeras. Or rather, they could, if anyone was crazy enough to take them with at their new shockingly bad price - they are a perfect example of how a price completely marginalised a unit in the 28mm version of the game, but unlike epic they will have to wait years until the next IG codex before having a second chance.

funny, because my understanding was that arty companies are terrifyingly good at breaking enemy formations (18BP disrupt weapons dish out a lot of hurt) and significantly more able to absorb casualties than a support formation can
vulnerable, yes, but workable too. set them on a blitz, layered with a russ company in front, with scout screens in front of that, and faster elements to intercept, and of course aircraft to chase down broken troops. seems viable enough to me. doesnt capture objectives as well as you may like, but if you can stop them claiming as well, it turns into a shootout, and IG will always have bigger guns.

i've experimented with cheaper arty companies in my own list design process, and even without manticores, and with a lower armour, and without commissars, they're still very dangerous. i'd definitely hesitate to drop the arty company by much, if at all.

also, i quite like the idea of a russ upgrade to an arty company, give them some 4+RA to stand up front and take the first hits.

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

Sure, that firebase would be a hard nut to crack, but essentially you're paying half of your points in a 3k game for it, not counting the aircraft you speak of. Artillery companies are better at higher points games, but they're still frequently less effective than 3 artillery batteries, which only cost a hundred points more and can target up to 3 different formations, add multiple blast markers for firing, and can't be wiped out in a single assault.

Whereas in the Thunderhawk heavy environment I play in it was big news recently when a Guard player got to fire his artillery. A series of unfortunate events had conspired together to allow the artillery to fire all those gorgeous guns in one great cresendo of damage rather than being silenced at the start of turn 1 as usual.

Your Mileage May Vary, but it's a huge amount of points to gamble on your opponent being one of those not being able to just casually sweep it off the table.

Yes, its unfortunate (well, depending in your p.o.v.) that our gaming group is very focused towards teleporting terminators and thunderhawks...

Makes for a very turtle like existence for the SL players.

i woulda hoped that massed hydras would discourage any kind of aircraft assault, but thunderhawks really are harsh, and can survive quite a bit. still, one would hope that enough of them (and maybe even a thunderbolt squad flying cover) would make even the most reinforced armour think twice about flying into that bunker.

my 'bunker' list would be something like this:

arty company (all manticores) with a hydra
tank company with a hydra
shadowsword (or possibly 3 russ in with the arty company as front armour)
deathstrikes
2 flak batteries
2 rough rider platoons
4 thunderbolt squadrons (or drop one for a third RR platoon)

hopefully 16 hydra shots would discourage anyone air assaulting them, and worst case scenario, on turn 3 i have to motor the tank company up the table to cross the line and make a play for his objectives. definitely lacks mobility, and will have touble grabbing a bunch of objectives, but i'd consider the artillery company a better use of points here than 3 batteries in the same spot (mostly because it wont break at the first sign of trouble, and can stagger its firepower for a 10 and an 8 point barrage every turn if need be)

frankly, the list works better with minervans (where i can take a supreme commander, and a second tank company thanks to cheaper russ options)

then again, i dont care for optimising tournament lists to smash my opponents face, that may be your bag, but it doesnt excite me much. so my list building method is probably fairly different to yours

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

Yeah, i'm not so keen on tournament quality meta-gaming or streamlining, however most of what Matt has said, and along with that GlynG and E&C, is still valid.

Tee

True, and both approaches are valid. In discussing changes and points costs though it is definitely worth getting the the point of view of the more competitive players, since they are going to be more likely to spot exploitable strenghts or weaknesses than those drawn to thematic models regardless of performance.

For instance, apart from all the other weaknesses we've mentioned, Artillery companies are also very poor against MSU forces that spread out. Sure, you'll break any of them, but only one per turn, and artillery is suprisingly poor at actually killing units; the damage plateaus at AP4+ AT5+ at 3BP.... and stays there right up to 18BP. You get extra templates, but your odds of killing a small formation remain very similar.

Compare that to 3 small artillery formations firing with the same AP4 AT5, each giving one extra BM for firing at the target, and the potential damage output is much higher. Plus the artillery is less vulnerable to a single huge strike due to dispersal and gives a higher activation count.



16 Hydra shots and 4 squadrons of Thunderbolts would keep anything safe from air assault. I don't think I've ever seen so much AA
If I was playing Thunderhawks vs that, there wouldn't be much choice but to risk overwatch and sit it out until the opponent spreads out in turn 2, or just sit it out to turn 3 and grab some objectives and call it a day. It wouldn't be a very exciting match, but at least there would be time left to fit in another game to two

And while that might open the SM player up to accusations of boring play style, it wasn't the SM that packed all the keep-away guns