Pointcost change is not my main reason against this nerf of the Tank destroyer. There is no reason to buy him over an executioner exept making him extremely cheap which is kinda weird for such a "super" tankkiller it is described to be.

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy

This has seemingly exposed a second mistake of mine, in that the Executioner, whilst not unbalanced, was up-powered in order to make it worthwhile compared to the other turret types... meaning that it now treads on the same territory as the Destroyer Tank Hunter.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Not your mistake. The downgrade was not forseeable.  

But there has to be done an adjustment in eighter direction to. Maybe making the Executioner extremly AP (hot Plasma spitting) while cancelling MW and the giving the Tank destroyer more extreme AT.(MW 4+ (AT only) is not THAT extreme I suppose) Just a thought.

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy

Whilst many shared in the decision to uprate the Executioner, I oversaw it happening and so I take responsibility.


Something I did suggest to Bill was that the Minervans could just have more powerful Leman Russ Tank Destroyers than most other IG armies, and not bother changing their power in this list at all.

Other lists could use a different 'pattern' of Destroyer & Executioner in order to explain the discrepancy in stats...

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Why not just set them all to the "correct" stats to avoid confusion?

At EPIC scale, armoured vehicle patterns should not be that significant.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

I don't really believe that Minervans are so renown for their superior plasma and laser technology  

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

As a published list, I wasn't sure how much change Bill wanted to have for the Minervan review.

I agree that the ideal solution would be to fix both tanks to more background-matching stats.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Like this?

Leman Russ Executioner
Type Speed Armour CloseCombat Firefight
Armoured Vehicle 15cm 4+ 6+ 4+
Weapon Range Firepower Notes
Plasma Destroyer 3 x 30cm AT4+/AT4+ -
1 x Lascannon 45cm AT5+ -
2 x Heavy Bolter 30cm AP5+ -

Notes: Reinforced Armour..

Remove the Heavy bolters if you use the FW sponsonless model.
Note the absence of slow-firing as the Plasma Destroyer doesn't gets hot.

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

Remove the Heavy Bolters and you're good to go I'd say. Same points as a standard Leman Russ I reckon.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Maybe 2x AT4+/AP+4 and 45cm to diverse it a bit from the demolisher hull and provide some mid-range Firepower for the companies.

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy

Here is what I would like.  Playtest some stats.  I really don't care which ones you play, just try one of the above suggestions (or something close to it), report it, and detail the effect -if any- the change had on the game.

If it had no change, that is fine to report.  If it had great change, report it too.  I'd like to figure out what the changes are going to do to the list before I make a decision.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Thread resurrection.

I know this was brought up but -unless somebody has something substantial to add- I don't think it will make it to the review.  Please explain yourself if you feel otherwise.  I am trying to make sure the Raiders review goes smoothly.

As of right now the only thing I've changed is the presentation of the tank costs (cosmetic) and the stats on the the Stormhammer.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

It depends if the change to the Destroyer Tank Hunter will bemade (AT4+ MW instead of AT4+ TK1).
If MW then it could trip on the toes of the Leman Russ Executioner. While with an AT-MW shot the Destroyer can only target AV the Executioner has an allrounder MW shot as it also can target Infantry.

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

I'm tending more to AT3+, MW now, incidentally.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I think it isn't the actual to-hit number but the MW status of the Laser Destroyer.

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