I just had a thought about the Destroyer. If it were reduced to MW, wouldn't it basically become a copy of the Executioner?

_________________
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.

Thoughts on this?  Anyone else?

---

As for the low activation count, I will try to explain the reservations made by others... The problem isn't the low count per se, but the fact that to counter it you seem forced into bringing aircraft or titans and that seemed a little odd.

Hena (maybe it wasn't Hena but I could swear it was him.. Soren maybe?) made a suggestion awhile ago to make a new formation with I think Hellhounds and Bombards, maybe three of each.  The whole idea was to have another tank based support formation that would be relatively inexpensive.  This doesn't change the activation count, but it does give the list a nudge of variety in the support section.  I throw it out there because I really don't want to change the list again in another year, but I also want to give the idea a chance to be flushed out if it has merit.

If not this formation, is there room for another support formation that are on treads?  If not, we'll close that idea down.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

After a long time I am nearly forced to write some comments to the list. It´s my favourite list, hard to play, hard to win with, easy to counter (for most lists) and always fun.

1.) Stormhammer: Never used it. It´s clearly overpowered and causes more troubles than it´s worth tbh. I am sheding no tears if this tanks is dropped completely. Minervans have load of tank variants, one more or less iss no concern for me when I look at the troubles it causes.

2.) Low activation count: This is a point which is really a problem. You have troubles to get a decent 3k army with 8 activations. Not speaking about buying goodies like TD. You need three! companies  which is simply not affordable to get you 8 activation if you do not want to get multible T-bolts or Warhounds in. The last list update with upping the price for some tanks (conqueror) made it even worse. It´s something I have to live with but takes much fun and variety out of the list. Up the support slots to three per company, then at least I can try to come around without a titan or 2 T-bolt squads and without only using SHT-companies to save points.

3.)Destroyer. Not worth their points. For 2+2 Destroyers I get 1 Shadowsword which adds more punch, uses no rare slots and most important +1 activation. Thats farfarfar better than any destroyer can ever be. I would go so far and give the Destroyer vanquisher cannon stats with more range and lower the costs to a human level. Then It could be affordable. Else it is a goodie never used as many of the Minvervan things. Simply making it a MW interferes with the executioner and makes one of the two pointless...guess whom

4.)Amphibious: Drop it, never used and I am not intending to use it even it is in the list. For ever 1000 points a company means you have all your companies amphibious because you will never ever have more than 3 in a 3k game.

5.) Please, please please drop the slow firing tank rules ande NEVER bring it back. It´s really pain to keep track of slow firing plasma cannons on Leman Russ, especially if you have 20 of them (which tank shot, which one shot once, twice, which not...wtf). Cut their firepower to half and let them shoot ever turn. Problem solved and hopefully never be sawn again.... (already done in the last update i have)


my 0.00002 cent

RS

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy

1.

I was actually going to suggest those, but caught this. That's pretty WYSIWYG if you ask me. Rather than an extra attack, just give it FF 3+.

3 Dice at 3+ -> 2 hits

opposed to 4 Dive at 4+ -> 2 hits

There's less variance with 3 dice (good for balancing) but the same average number of hits.

2.

On the Destroyer, what's the 40k stats for that weapon? Yes I know this isn't 40k, but they serve as a good basis for stats.

3.

Hena suggested a 6 unit Hellhound formation I believe. That or a 6 unit Griffon formation would be fun to play and would make for some cheaper support choices. 2 Support per core though should be kept. It's a restriction that defines the list.

4.

If you want no negative points, go with Tank coys/platoons of all Thunders. +10 for Conquerors/Exterminators, +20 for Russ/Demolishers/Executioners, +45 for Vanquishers, + whatever for Destroyers.

5.

Eh, just give them all Amphibious. You can't balance something like that. And so long as the opponent is made aware that they can cross rivers before hand plans can be adapted. Please clear up the third sentence in the rule though.

Salamander Command

Why does this have leader? Does it have special Comms equipment that the special rule is supposed to represent?

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Keeping 2 Support formation changes nothing. You cannot have more than 6 choices in 3k (without aircraft and titans) because of company costs, not support cost. There are already cheap support formation which changes nothing if you need to pay arm and length to get the slots to fill them.

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy

Leave it.  It's the workhorse, general purpose SHT.  The other SHTs are niche performers and will be required for those niche, regardless of whether the Stormhammer is a better all-purpose tank.  The sole problem is internal balance versus the Baneblade, because it is the other general-purpose tank in the list, and I think downgrading the workhorse is going to cause external balance problems.  That one minor issue is not worth it.


Unless it's creating a real balance problem, leave it.


Unless it's creating a real balance problem, leave it.


I don't have a strong opinion on this.  It's purely a layout change.  It would be more consistent to have it all as "add X points" but in the end it's not a big deal.  We saw where the "all special rules as a bonus" consistency got us with the Chaos Factions.


Leave it.

_________________
Neal

Neal, I'm not sure where you are coming from on this.  The Stormhammer is like Warp Spiders, except worse.  It isn't just a subtle difference between them; it is such an obvious difference in firepower that the only reason people choose not to bring them is out of boredom.  Every tournament list I have seen has included these tanks except when I banned them.  IMO by making the Stormhammer a niche tank as well, it should eliminate this obvious choice.  Shouldn't we be striving toward internal balance as well?

In terms of external balance changes, there is no way to know without trying.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

The Stormhammer is not just better than the Baneblade, it's better than any of the other SHT's including the Shadowsword.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Someone asked about the Wh40k stats of the Lemans Russ Destoyers Laser Destroyer. Here the stats to compare whith other weapons which are comparable:

Leman Russ Demolisher
Demolisher (In Epic: 30cm AP3+/AT4+ Ignore Cover):
Range 24" Strength 10, Armourpiercing 2, Blast 5", Ordnance 1

Leman Russ Destroyer
Laser Destroyer (In Epic: 75cm AT4+ TK(1), suggested: 75cm AT4+ Macro-weapon):
Range 72", Strength 10, Armourpiercing 2, Ordnance 1
(following Wh40k to Epic strictly the Laser Destroyer would have only 75cm AT4+....nothing else because its AT capability is exactly the same as the Demolisher. Perhabs it would get Ignore Cover because this ability has to be justified someway for the Demolisher   )

Valdor Tank Hunter
Neutron Laser-Projector (suggested: 75cm AT2+ Macro-weapon, Disrupt):
Range 72", Strength 10, Armourpiercing 1, Ordnance 1, ShockPulse**
**additional automatic Crew Stunned result on the damage table against non-WE

Yes with the current stats for the Leman Russ Executioners Plasma Destroyer (60cm MW4+) the Leman Russ Destroyer tips a bit on its toes with the suggested stats.

But see posting #4 for alternate stats for the Plasma Destroyer (if the Plasma Cannon remains unchanged).

For discussion about changing the Plasma Cannons stats please look here:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/forums/ ... 69;t=16701

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

75cm AT4+ Macro-weapon sounds good.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

You know, now that I think about it, I can't recall ever playing the Minervans that wasn't SHT-heavy.  The minor differences in the roles of the SHTs were probably emphasized in that environment.  In a more heterogeneous army that is probably not apparent.

_________________
Neal

why all the talk about changing amphibious? sure it doesn't come up in the average tournament but it's something cool for the list and could be used in scenario type games. if it hasn't been causing any problems why change it?
i also like the suggestion of no slow fire rule. in a tank heavy army like this it would certainly streamline things. but how many other lists use this tank? would it cause problems for them?

Senseless change.

Executioner gets MW4+ against all targets, only 60cm but an additional lascannon for 50 points less (not counting 5+FF). Not only points but there is no purpose to use this tank.

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy

The points cost for the Destroyer will change too as stated earlier.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/