I will open a poll on the sponson status of Leman Russes, but I again note that pintle gunners will definitely not be entering the tournament list.

For non-tournament games, they're of course fine and I'm sure I can include some recommended rules for them, but not for the tournament rules, which must be as accessable as possible (and that means being able to build most of your models from SG/FW components).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Haven't read the most recent Vraks book yet, but in "reality" that co-axial light weapon would most likely just be a "spotting" weapon ballistically matched to the main gun to be used for ranging and targetting, not for sweeping up nearby infantry.

To include a single AP6+ attack as "necessary" to represent Krieg tanks seems, to me, to be looking at things far too closely under the EPIC microscope.  Such a light weapon is covered by the unit's firefight value and does not need its own shooting value.  The weapon *is* there for purists, but doesn't really need to have a "shot", even if it's correctly *modelled* on the miniature.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

i hope im not rehashing something that has already been discussed elswhere but didnt youre original list allow for the core inf. formation to take half its stands as heavy weapons, i.e. a dismounted tranch company with lots of heavy weapons. i would be interested in seeing this option return, perhaps with a points cost ? or even make the upgrade (may take 2 gorgons or half heavy weapons for x points) to avoid the mech infantry heavy weapons in gorgons approach ? i must admit part of the reason for this is my desire to field a krieg army without buying 10 boxes of barren siege inf.  but i also think a heavy weapon company is a must for a true trench warfare army.

_________________
"god help me, i do love it so" - Patton

There is already a Fire Support Platoon upgrade that adds 4 heavy weapons stands to a company, but that is nowhere half I admit. With that upgrade you cannot take transport for them, so you simply cannot do heavy weapons mechanised.

Perhaps the numbers you get in the heavy weapon upgrade could go up slightly or there be an option to increase it to larger numbers. Not sure what E&C intends, I've not played enough with them to have a particular opinion on this yet.

+1

With the outcome of the poll being very one sided, can we move on from this subject?

I'm with Hena, Neal, Chroma etc, and I see no need for things to get so complicated. Epic is not meant to be a complicated game.

_________________
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.

My original suggestion of making sponsons optional probably was a little complicated and muddied the waters, but my preferred option of making all Death Korps tanks sponsonless in the list was just a call to represent a similar but different unit properly; Death Korps configuration Russes not having sponsons while is other IG armies do is no more complicated than drop configuration sentinels in the Elysian list being equipped and stat-ed different to rulebook sentinels, say.

The other benefit of testing sponsonless Russes in one list is that points can be finetuned and balanced and others can then borrow the sponsonless profile to use in their normal guard lists should they choose e.g. I never intend to play Black Templars but I will use the Land Raider Crusader and Thunderhawk transporter in my normal Marine list in friendly games (they are all used by all Marine chapters), being a bit cautious with it but feeling mostly comfortable since they have been tested and balanced in other lists.

Traditionalists or those not familiar with the Vraks books can dismiss going sponsonless but the Vraks books are the 'bible' for the Death Korps and should be followed to do justice to such a fantastically detailed and described army IMO. If a W40k player came to the list at the moment, inspired by the opportunity to fight some epic Vraks battles, they would generally be very happy with the list, it would just be the sponsons and the Bombard with the much reduced range (they sit even further back than the basilisks in the artillery lines and should have 120+cm indirect tange not a piddly 45cm) that would stand out as glaringly obviously wrong.

I'll use and test them without obviously, but the results of the poll have spoken and will likely be followed for the official list, so I'll stop going on about it from here on.

What shall we move the discussion onto next?... Properly done long range Bombards again as E&C was toying with going with before possibly? (they're based on a Leman Russ chassis, the chimera based Bombard of the epic rulebook can be a faux Bombard or a poorly made pattern of one) The cost would need to bumped up for them, but they should be ok. The list has lost the manticores, which are probably a more competitive option anyway (maybe I'm just a disrupt fan).

The list lost Manticores due to the Vraks books, of course.

I'm open to hearing some suggested new stats for the bombard.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Some were suggested in the previous thread, copy and pasted below.

They may well need tweaking:

Armour 6+ or 5+?
Move only 15? - do we really want garrisoning over-watching Bombards? Guess the alternative would be to add a "may not garrison" into it's notes.
Is the no direct fire note a good idea? - if it failed it's action test it would presumably then have no way to fire at all?

Costing, 275-300points maybe? (250-275 if no direct fire maybe?) I've never used normal Bombards, disrupt has always seemed better to me than ignore cover, short range aside, but there must be reasons why a 45cm Bombard is costed equivalently to a 200cm range disrupting Manticore.

@Sponsonless Leman Russes:
Also all Leman Russes in the histiorical refight scenarios don't have sponsons.

@Bombard:
6+ save because it has the same armour as a Chimera AND it is Open Topped. Thats the sam as with the Griffon which has Armour 6+.

The Bombard IS slow. In Wh40k it is evenslower than generic vehicles. As for garrisoning: Why would you garrison a higly vulnerable formation which already has a long range and can fire indirect? Technically you could garrison them but it would be also a quick way to loose your Bombards.

Instead of IndirectFire the Vombard could have the following stats:
Bombard Heavy Siege Mortar (Gryphonne IV Pattern)*
Type Speed Armour CloseCombat Firefight
Armoured Vehicle 15cm 6+ 6+ 6+
Weapon Range Firepower Notes
Heavy Siege Mortar 30-240cm 2BP Ignore Cover, Slow-firing

Notes: The Bombard doesn't need a Line of Sight to shoot his Heavy Siege Mortar.

* Note that the Rulebook Bombard is Triplex Phall pattern. Obviously a inferior design  

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

I don't suggest they'd garrison them far forward to be easily picked off, a garrison on the blitz objective behind cover would be more likely. The advantage is they could go on overwatch before the start of the game and have a chance to shoot at ground attacking landing craft, etc if they attacked the deployment zone area first turn. There again since the Krieg use artillery platforms rather than vehicles these can be garrisoned (by the cause of any formation containing speed 0 units being able to) so the Basilisk, Medusa and AA platforms already can do this already.

If we are going to go with forcing indirect fire only (due reasonably to the size and angle of the barrel) then we should accept it not being able to fire on a failed activation - seems the best option to me. It often tends to happen to other artillery units anyway as they will often be deployed out of sight of the enemy to be safe and so would not be able to fire due to not having line of sight to anything. The rule you suggest would be a very bad idea because if it's just no line of fire needed these would still be able to fire anyway. In fact they may even be able to overwatch with no line of fire and hit anywhere within 120cm after an enemy moves turn 1 without an activation needing to be rolled, which would be abusive.

The other thing I think should be done with a properly done Bombard is to add an equal number of Trojans to the formation as standard - a Bombard is a stupidly large gun on tracks and has no internal space for ammo or loaders. In W40k each Bombard comes with it's own free Trojan which carries it's ammo for it and which it loads a single shell at a time into it's gun with it's own integral crain arm - it's why it's slow firing (they've not made the ammo Trojan mandatory, I suspect just so as not to put people off paying a further £37.30 on top an already pricey £53.85 tank).

This would bump the points costs up for the formation a bit and obviously the Trojan would not have a transport vehicle role but I think it would be 'fluffy'. Maybe 300 points for a formation of 3 120cm can't fire direct Bombards and 3 Trojans?

See piccy:

Good idea. Also would give the Bombard Formation some AP firepower (the Trojans Heavy Bolter) if enemies move closer than 30cm as Bombards have no secondary weapon.

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

Not my (the ERC) list, no.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

E&C, any thoughts on this?

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment