I must admit, Honda, when you took 'em out I shook my head. I don't play the list, so all it cost you was the warmth of my approval, but I hoped you could accommodate both iterations within the one Epic list.

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

[/quote]

that made me laugh sooo hard. Good job IA books don't come out very often.

seriously though, who in their right mind would model any hard to find/ unavailable unit in this list if their presence was dictated by the whim of a company that doesn't even make them?

Some points as I'm physically building my army at last:

- Storm Trooper Company should be called Storm Trooper Platoon.

- Aside from the fact that IMO it doesn't belong as a Core Company, the balance of the Mortar Company is clearly off. That formation is worth 50pts more than a standard Drop Troop Company at least. I'd still prefer a smaller mortars-only Support Formation mind you.

- Drop Sentinels - Are they really worth 150pts? You can't use their Scout 20cm coherency when teleporting after all, so they have to land in a little group and probably then die.

- Any thoughts on including the Heavy Bolter Drop Sentinel, say 4 for 75pts?

- Cyclopses look too expensive. I'd consider it if you got 3 for 50pts. Maybe.

- Can we have standard Imperial Thunderbolt Fighters? 300pt AA squadrons look expensive and unweildy for an army that has no ground based flak at all.

- Related to that, can we steal the Vannaheim "may start 2 air formations on CAP instead of garrisons on Overwatch" rule? I've played against it and it's quite balanced.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

One month later bump.

Not that Honda is likely to notice, he hasn't logged in for a month.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Well, is there any reason we can't try and reach some consensus on what we want him to consider?

Regarding your previous comments:

Storm Trooper Name: Agreed

Mortar Company: 50 points is probably a good increase. The main benefit I see to them being a Core company, is it provides at least some flexibility in Core choices. There's a point where you don't really need/want another formation of 8 dudes with half a plasma gun.

Drop Sentinels: They're even more overpriced than you think. Drop Sentinels don't have Scout at all. This formation is definitely overpriced for four 6+ Light Vehicles with speed 20 and 15cm guns. Even if they do Teleport and have Macro Weapons. Reducing the price might be the wrong answer though, as it would make the sentinels even more prone to 'popcorning' a ton of cheap formations. Perhaps increasing the size of the formation would be better?

Heavy Bolter Drop Sentinel: Are you suggesting a 75 point formation? That seems way too cheap. Perhaps the ability to exchange Melta Sentinels for Heavy Bolter Sentinels at no cost?

Cyclops Cost: Agreed. 75 points is too much for some expendable 3+ Close Combat attacks. (Also, see below comment on upgrades)

Thunderbolts: Standard TBolts would work, but I kind of like the specialization that comes with the Lightning Variants. What I would like to see is perhaps something like "Lightning Wing: 150 points, Two Lightning Interceptors. Add Two more Interceptors for 100 points. Any Interceptor may be upgraded to a Lightning Strike Fighter for +25 points each." This would provide the following:

1) Showcase the unique level of Navy support the Elysians have, instead of the standard Thunderbolts.
2) Allow a cheap interception squadron.
3) Define "Interceptor vs Strike Fighter", less confusing than "Fighter vs Strike Fighter."
4) Allow for mixed formations, if desired. Lightnings are much more individually specialized than the Thunderbolts are, which is fine. This does prevent a problem though, in that the Interceptors are essentially useless if there are no aircraft on the board. Thunderbolts never have this problem, as they have equivalent (if shorter ranged) AA to the Interceptors, but also possess a significant Ground-Attack capability. Allowing mixed formations of Interceptors and Strike Fighters would offer access to a Lightning squadron which chooses versatility at the expense of some efficiency.

Starting CAP: Definitely agree. Is there an option to still have Overwatch instead? I can see the benefit to having Vultures/Venators on Overwatch in some situations, but it'd be nice to have the air defense up to prevent early-game air assaults.



A Thought on Upgrades:
Everyone knows there's a problem with upgrades generally being worse than spending the points on new formations. My current dilemma, looking at the available upgrades, is that with the exception of the core Infantry, they're all 25 points each. In some cases (Cyclops) they're too expensive, but it also feels like they don't necessarily add much variation to the company. Each is just slightly different from the others: Veterans=Sniper, Fire Support=Extra shooting, Infantry=More bodies, Sentinels=Macroweapons. I feel like there should be some way to add variety to the drop companies. Perhaps some option to replace Infantry with alternatives? Swapping 4 regulars for 4 Mortars for +50 points, or 4 regular Infantry replaced with Hardened Veterans, or something along those lines. Compared to the upgrades available for most Guard lists, it feels like these don't have much of an effect. Also, can we have an option to add Valkyries to transport upgrades? Even if it counts as an upgrade itself, it'd be nice to have that capability.

Tauros & Venators:
After playing a couple more games with these, I've come to two conclusions. First off, I think the variant Venators are unnecessary. I'd propose simplifying to either just the Lascannon or Multilaser variant, as the regular Tauros provides solid Infantry/FF support, and mixed formations are permitted. Second, the current Venator is definitely too cheap. The TL Lascannons range and power have consistently let it do far more damage than a 150 point formation warrants, as they can Double + Fire at a target 115 cm away, and have an ~88% chance to destroy at least one Armor 5+ vehicle, such as most transports. Against most mechanized forces (which is quite a lot of them) this can shut down a formation pretty severely. A good reference to the Elysian use of Venators is on page 82 of IA8, where it says that each squadron generally operates with one anti-tank vehicle and two standard Venators. My preferred solution would be to just drop the Lascannon variant completely, but charging points for the upgrade or restricting it to only one would also work. Regardless, I feel it to be critical to restrict the cheap all-Lascannon squadron.

And finally, what about a Reconnaissance Platoon?
A good home for Heavy Bolter Sentinels (and Support Sentinels) would be in an 8-10 walker core formation. Since Drop sentinels don't have Scout there's no worry about spreading out too far, and it would provide a formation that would be relatively quick and mobile. Basically a 'cavalry' element for the airborne, fast but with more staying power than the Tauros variants.

Ok, let's set some level of expection.

There's a lot of stuff going on right now and I'm sorry if my Real Life (tm) doesn't align very well with your gaming expectations. It's real, it gets dealt with first.

Secondly, just because I'm not logging in doesn't mean I'm not monitoring, i.e. checking to see what's going on. There hasn't been much going on from a community/users perspective that I can see. I'm not too concerned about that, after all it is summer and I'd like to think people have other things they want to do. I don't know what your local groups are like, but all of us have a lot going on.

Third, I do not see any evidence that games are being played. The fact that comments are coming in is fine, but showing everyone that you've played a game, discovered X and Y carries more weight than "I think...". That doesn't mean I'm not interested in hearing what you think (more on that later), but I'm more interested in hearing what you experienced.

Fourth, I posted what the schedule was going to be like and what the goal is for the list to the end of the year. With no games played, I see no reason to effect any change.


Now, having said all that, I am reading your comments. I'm finally getting to schedule a game for next week which I am quite excited about. Considering that it's been awhile, the results ought to be rather humorous.



I have been thinking on this a bit. I am inclined to leave it a Core choice and bring it more in line with where E&C/Signal would prefer it, which is a formation of pure artillery. It will most likely remain 0-1, intended to represent assets attached to the company command. The costs will be TBD.

Sentinels: The Elysians do not use Sentinels for scouting (per IA3), intending them to provide mobile heavy support, presumably, to allow heavy weapons to continue to move with the assaults. They are probably not as cost effective as some would like, they are more difficult to popcorn as is.

Cyclops: I hear you. You don't think it is costed correctly. It's the first cut at a change. Your point is noted and it will be addressed.

Signal Lightning proposal: I am looking at this very closely. I am not against the proposal and think it has merit.

Garrison vs. Vannaheim CAP: As it stands, I don't feel the army should have both of these rules. There is clear demonstation in IA8 of garrison being used. Although the V-CAP is an interesting idea, it seems to me that a logical outcome would be to take the four strong Lightning formation and always start it on CAP. That's not what I'd like to see. So at this point, I am currently leaning to leaving garrison at the expense of V-CAP.

Variety: I hear what you are saying, but in reality, there isn't a huge variety in an Elysian list if we look at it's big brother. I don't see that as an imbalance and in fact, the higher one moves up a force structure, soldier/platoon/company/regiment/etc. the less variety is usually present in gaming and singular characteristics become more defining (e.g. mobility). So, I'm not that inclined to shake things up at this point.

The way forward...involves playing. There are two check points left before the list gets frozen for a year. They will occur roughly around end of September and mid-December. In both cases, wild swings in the design are not going to happen short of overwhelming gaming evidence. If I was going to characterize the next four-ish months, I'd say we are in the refining stage, not the defining stage.

Cheers,

_________________
Remember Taros? We do.

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

I have not been playtesting the list despite building a physical army due to the serious balance concerns I have that you have not addressed, or attempted to address.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Hey, no hate here about RL stuff. Definitely take care of the stuff that actually matters, but there's been enough instances of people just disappearing indefinitely. Good to know that you were otherwise occupied, not just bored.


Please, for the love of god, don't make it a 0-1 choice. One per 2-3k points is already effectively the same, but I frequently play games that are 4-8k points, where it makes no sense to be limited in such a way.

The loss of scout is definitely appropriate for Elysian Sentinels, but I think having an independent formation of them is unnecessary. If they aren't used as scouts/recon, why have a scout/recon formation? Removing the 4-walker formation would go a long ways towards differentiating them from normal Sentinels. Additionally, I think the "mobile heavy support" role isn't very well represented with the Multimeltas at the moment. Generally the only time the Multimeltas are used as fire support is when setting up support fire for a different engagement. Heavy bolters might better represent equipping the company with organic fire support, as well as keeping engagements as the best way to deal with enemy armor (which seems appropriate, when melta combs, demo charges, and Lascutters are the main way to do it in 40k) The switch from Multimeltas to Heavy Bolters could also support an increase from FF 5+ to FF 4+, which could give them a role even in engagement-oriented formations.

The support sentinels would also be fully appropriate as an upgrade. They'd add some ranged AT firepower, and be valuable additions to the mortar company. Instead of the AP5+ of the heavy bolters, they could be equipped as follows:



The Vanaheim rule still allows you to garrison your ground troops, but only one starts on Overwatch. Can I ask you to elaborate on why you don't want Lightnings to start on CAP? Alternately, can we include Tarantula Sentry Guns if we're looking at a Garrison-only list? They're a regular Heavy-Support selection in both the IA3 and IA8 lists.


The problem I have is that currently the list is composed of Plasma Gun infantry (in or out of Valkyries), Tauros, and Vultures. The air units help with that, as do the various upgrades, but it's still vastly more limited than any other NetEA Guard list out there. There are definitely things that have no place in a list like this (Tanks and true Artillery come to mind) but without more diversity in list creation I find it hard to choose the Elysians instead of another IG Regiment. When I do play games as Elysians, I feel as if my only real strategic decisions are "which formation do I teleport next to," and "who do my Venators/Vultures shoot at?" I usually end up playing the Steel Legion list with garrisoned infantry companies, Sentinels, Vultures, and mounted Storm Troopers, having any mechanized elements represent an allied Regiment in support. The main reason is that I have enough flexibility in list creation to adjust for the scenario being played. Essentially I get to retain a lot of interesting options, and the only thing I give up is teleport and Tauros. It would be easier to just have an entry saying "Elysians can be represented by the Steel Legion list, only you can't take any Ogryn, Rough Riders, or Armored Vehicles that aren't Skimmers. In exchange Infantry Companies gain teleport, and mechanized companies gain Valkyries instead of Chimeras for +X points."

It is in that light that I have to disagree with your statement that the Elysians have passed to the refining stage. You've done good work, but I don't think the list has a solid enough identity yet to stand as completed.

I apologize in advance if my tone seems overly critical; it's not intended that way.

@E&C: Then play a game and show us that your percieved balance concerncs ARE serious.

It seems to be ages i have read any ELysian Batrep.

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

But the problems are obvious.
For example no ground based AA, sr2, expensive fighter formation and no CAP special rule means either this army will have to stay 100% off board turn 1 (until you get a CAP up) or marines will destroy the army without even trying. There's not even a need to playtest to see the issue there, and other equal issues also exist.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Sorry but only under extreme misplacement of units and misfortune i can see that a 1st turn Marine air-assault would cripple an Elysian army that it would loose the game.

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

@BlackLegion: You don't see it as a problem that the only AA capability in the list is a 300 point formation that a) has to be activated to have an effect, b) can only affect 1 target, and c) is SR2/In 2+?

EDIT: and comes out of your 1/3 allies allocation, in a list that is also using that allocation to compensate for the absence of artillery, and the scarcity of ranged antitank?

Maybe it is a problem but not a crippling one.

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

@Signal: No worries, you're just speaking your mind as is E&C. We're not always going to agree on things, but we can respect people's opinions and positions.



Ah, I see what you are saying. Ok, that's not a problem. It will be one per 3K.



Sooo...here is where I get to disagree.

First off, I think there is value in such a formation. It allows some measure of flexibility by not being tied directly to the company. Is it redundant? Possibly, but as of yet, it has not demonstrated that it is dangerously so (i.e. causes an imbalance to the list).

The reason for the MM is admittedly a little clearer in 40K, where the lack of "heavy" heavy weapons like lascannons severely limit's the Elysians ability to handle heavy armour or fortifications. Here, it represents a harder punch when the unit gets in contact. I'm not planning on changing that. The MM Sentinel is somewhat iconic for the Elysians.

I'm also attempting to include formations/units that are differentiating (if I may bruise the English language). Adding heavy bolter Sentinels isn't that distinguishing a capability than just adding support units.

The other thing I am attempting not to do is just port everything over from 40K. I will freely admit that this part of the exercise can be somewhat subjective, but without some culling of weapons you'll just end up with a smaller version of 40K...which is not the goal.



My primary concern has to do with the impact to other lists. Let me paint a scenario:

* Lists that have high SR struggle to get off a first turn air assault against Elysians.

Is it because the Elysians are more capable in air to air combat? Nope, they use the Imperial Navy just like the Steel Legion does.

Although the Elysians may demonstrate a superior level of mobility once "in theatre", they are still stuck with the same logistical tail that can hamper other Imperial Guard armies. They aren't space based, so at a strategic level, they have no advantage over other lists like Space Marines or Eldar. In fact, they should struggle much in the same way against those forces as a Steel Legion force might.

So in a sense, I am not using the V-CAP rule, because as I am interpreting it's effect, the rule is basically saying, "We're good enough that we can put up an air umbrella up where ever and whenever we want".

The counter position as stated in the FW books is that the Elysians are heavily dependent on the effectiveness of their air assets, i.e. when they are performing well, the Elysians do well. The converse is also true as described in IA3 and IA8.

So a lot of words to say that I don't see where it is justified in taking.



I understand what you are saying, but I'm afraid I'm not seeing your point. Yes, you have more options if you take SL. The same could be said for Krieg, or Baran, or Catachans. In a sense, an "aspect" of the Imperial Guard is manifested in this list. It focuses on a few things and attempts to do them well. It's not intended to replace any of those other lists. It will be true to it's roots, that is, it's source material. When you get down to it, this is an infantry heavy list. It's more mobile than others in a strategic sense, which is somewhat translated at the tactical level, but it's not going to have a full feature set if what you are comparing it to is the Steel Legion.



Opinion noted. Also keep in mind that I did not say "completed", only that large changes in the design are highly unlikely to happen.

Do we tweak the points of the mortars and the 0-1 thing? Yep.
Will the points change on the Cyclops? Yep.
Am I going to look at your Lightning proposal? Yes
Am I going to add Support Sentinels? No
Am I going to change the basic structure of the Drop company? No
Would I change the SR or Activation? No
Are the infantry going to get jet packs? No <joke>
Are there new units that will be added? Until I see something in play test that shows that there is an unbalancing gap, no.

So from that perspective, the general bulk of the list is set. How everything fits together is what will be determined in the two upcoming play test phases. Including myself, there are three Elysian players locally. Thankfully they do not look at things the same way I do as I am more of a "theme" type of player. So we're going to playtest as much as we can through the end of the year. As much as possible, we'll post batreps as well so that others can see what we are doing.

I imagine they'll be fairly fed up with seeing the Big E by the time this is all said and done.

_________________
Remember Taros? We do.

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Why not add Support Sentinels, exactly?

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