The Raiders review was put on hold for a number of reasons, but I'd like to get things back on track.

There are five things that have been brought up as potential areas to change in this list.  I'll post them below and my general feeling on them.

1. The Stormhammer.  While I am aware that opinions are divided, I am inclined to move the Stormhammer into an assault function and have the movement rate remain at 15cm.  Without going into ad nauseum posts, feel free to state your positions one more time.  Maybe fresh eyes will win out in this case.

2. The Destroyer.  E&C suggested moving this from a TK (AT4+) to a MW (AT4+) with a potential drop in points.  Would anyone care?  The reasons for this are to make it more in line with the actual stats and to open the door for another Russ variant in another list (not the Minervans) to take those TK stats for itself.  Thoughts?

3. Low activation count.  It is widely recognized that the Minervans have a difficult time of getting the count up.  I share many people's sentiments that this hinderance is a good thing.  Others want to have the 2 support per core changed to 3 supports per core.  The reasoning is because the choices become boring (aircraft or titans).  Is there room for one more smaller support formation?  Hena had brought this up in the past.  Nothing extreme, just something to allow players to field something other than aircraft or titans.  Thoughts?

4. Tank points.  It has been brought to my attention that the pricing for the tanks is unwieldy?  How many people feel this way?  I like the addition/subtraction box, but others do not.  This really doesn't change the list but I wanted to get some feedback on it nonetheless.  In any case I'll probably offer two different versions of the chart so people can stick with whatever makes them comfortable.

5. The amphibious special rule.  A few people have mentioned that they think this is unnecessary.  While this may be true for most games, I have seen it have an effect on a couple games and it played a crucial part in a Minervan win at the Games Day tournament.  Does it unbalance the list?  Does it violate the fluff?  Does it make a massive difference?  The answer to all of these IMO is 'no'.  If this be the case, lets have 'em keep the special rule if for no other reason than to distinguish the list from other IG lists.  On a side note I should point out the Minervan background is that they have 1/3 of their tanks as amphibious.  Unless somebody can make a strong argument against the rule, I'm inclined to leave it alone.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

My Minervan recommendations, IIRC, are:


A - Stormblade to go from FF4+ to FF5+
B - Stormsword main gun to go from 30cm to 45cm
C - Leman Russ Tank Destroyer main gun goes from TK to MW status, with a minor points drop.
D - Do something, anything, with the Stormhammer.  

That I have so few recommendations after all this time makes me happy.  


To address Moscovian's comments:

1 - Stormhammer.

It is the main problem unit in the list. Whilst I personally would like to see it go to 10cm speed, I'd be fine with its Twin Heavy Bolters being removed (being subsumed into the FF stat), or whatever, as long as it recieves a hefty downgrade.


2 - Destroyer Tank Hunter.

As I noted, I reckon I was a bit over-enthusiastic when writing stats for this tank, and although it is balanced where it is now, it doesn't match the background as well as MW status would. A commensurate points drop would be sensible if this was persued.


3 - Low Activation Count.

An intentional part of the list, and is fundamental to its balance. Shouldn't be changed too much IMO.


4 - Tank Points.

I don't find the current system unweildy at all, but the ERC has asked for 'no negative point values', and as this is an ERC list I would suggest following their request.

Army list construction will probably take a bit longer as a consequence of removing the 'pre set' formation costs and going to a 'points per tank' system, even if it averages out about the same in the end.


5 - Amphibious Special Rule.

I was somewhat against this when it was implemented, as according to the background all Chimeras everywhere are amphibious, so it didn't make a lot of sense to me that this rule was here. I don't object particularly strongly however.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Some to add (perhabs):
Is the MW on the Leman Russ Destroyer really necessary? Even the old Imperial Armour stats made the Plasma Destroyer a Plasma Cannon with 54" range (instead of 36") which doesn't gets hot. In the current Codex Imperial Gzuard it is a Plasma Connon with three shots which doesn't gets hot.

A chart to compare:

Plasma Cannon:
Range: 36", Strength: 7, Armourpiercing: 2, Heavy 1, Blast 3", Gets Hot

Plasma Destroyer (old)
Range: Range: 54", Strength: 7, Armourpiercing: 2, Heavy 1, Blast 3"

Plasma Destroyer (current)
Range: Range: 36", Strength: 7, Armourpiercing: 2, Heavy 3, Blast 3"

My suggestes Epic stats for the Plasma Destroyer:
30cm 3 x AP4+/AT4+ slow-firing
Notes: Has to shoot all three shots or none (for easier book keeping)

The AP4+/AT4+ slow-firing assumes that the Plasma Cannon stats don't change.

Also the Leman Russ Exterminator has now Heavy 4 instead of Heavy 2 of the un-updated Imperial Armour.

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

I'll do a proper response when I'm alive more but I do like Hena's idea. The exterminator is the twin autocannon chap is it not? I use them in friendlies with my 'open' leman russ turret with a gun swap. In honour of some fluff and to give them a role I have them as 30cm AP4+/AT5+/AA6+ (similar to a little known British I think WWII tank) beasty, in which they are usable and fun.

_________________
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

I would rather the tanks be accurate and correctly variably pointed rather than altering a number of them to try to force all of them to be worth the same like Hena suggests.

I’m quite happy with the tank pricing structure as it stands and would prefer it left as is, I’m genuinely unsure what problem people see in it (I did ask Chroma a couple of times in the thread where he changed it to his own version for an explanation but he never said). Yes negative points values are not otherwise used in lists, but the only way those tanks can be taken is by taking those off a base cost and it’s perfectly clear.

Raiders has seen publication and use all over the world. I’m not against changing things in there for good reasons when necessary, but I really don’t see the need here. Why cause unnecessary confusion and change by altering the the existing system people have been familiar with for years for something which has pretty much the pointings and ingame effects, just for whims of points formatting?

I think the Amphibious rule is a characterful little addition and should stay. No opinion on the Stormhammer but the revised stats to the Destroyer would make it match its background better and so long as there’s a little points drop to compensate I’m in favour.

If you don`t want negative points so why not start the Tank Company with all tanks being of the cheapest variant?
Sowith current points cost the Tank Company would start with 10 Thudnerers for 425 points, Conquerors and Exterminator would cost +10 points each, Leman Russ, Demolisher  and Executioners +20 points each,  Vanquishers + 45 points each and  Destoyers +70 points each.

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

That would work too.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

A bit OT ... but I can't find the original post ...  What's the status of Epic Siege ?  

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

storm hammer- for all the reasons stated previously, change it
low activations- i think it's fine the way it is. you want more then play a different list
destroyer- if this would help other lists then why not? it's not like there aren't other TK weapons on this list
amphibious- sure it might not come up every game but so what? it's different, adds character and is certainly not game breaking, so why change it?
point costs- anyone who's made it past the 3rd grade should not have a problem w/ this rule.  it is not the least bit confusing. what is confusing is why some people (actually one person) need to change this. ITS SUBTRACTION! do you not have a check book? have your units never had blast markers? you use it all the time, its not hard. if it isn't broken then don't fix it.

It's simply to maintain consistency over army lists.  BlackLegion's suggestion to start the formation at its "cheapest" and add from there will probably be the best implementation of this.  

If the point values all wind up being the same, what's wrong with consistency with other lists?  The implementation in the draft was an idea discussed with the Army Champion, not some conspiracy to play havoc with your armies.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

so taking a formation that no one would ever use, then adding to it to get back to the list that is currently in print is less confusing? you've just added a step in there that is not needed.
no one has said this was a problem. not one person. now all of the sudden one person just decides to change it?
i know this is giong to sound more rude then i intened it to but i'll say it anyway. why bother having the discussion on the storm hammer, destroyer, etc if one person can swoop right in and change it the way he sees fit?

Because the person who can change it as he sees fit cares about peoples opinion and asks them if the changes seems to be fine for them, too.

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