| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Future of SL - changes? http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=21075 |
Page 1 of 6 |
| Author: | Spectrar Ghost [ Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Future of SL - changes? |
Isn't the Sniper upgrade already 1-2 @ 25ea.? I support the Hellhounds for sure, the Cadian list has a platoon of 6 at 250, and this is proving quite balanced. The Cadian 200pt Griffon Platoon is if anything, slightly undercosted, IMO. It has exactly the same effect as two Squadrons, so it should scale easily. As an upgrade, the Indirect fire is less useful, but I think they are probably fine as is. No opinion on the Stormtroopers or Emperor either way. |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Future of SL - changes? |
As a regular opponent of the guard I think all of those would be fine/fun. To them I would add 1-2 Ogryns for 25 points each. I'm with you on why the Basalisk is 5+ instead of 6+. I believe Griffons were made 6+ because they're open top in 40k despite having equivalent armor to a Chimera. Although, that begs the question of why Manticores, Hydra and Bombards are all 6+ instead of 5+. I don't think any of them were ever open top. Quote: but nothing too radical! So no Demolisher debate then... |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Future of SL - changes? |
Spectrar Ghost wrote: The Cadian 200pt Griffon Platoon is if anything, slightly undercosted, IMO. It has exactly the same effect as two Squadrons, so it should scale easily. As an upgrade, the Indirect fire is less useful, but I think they are probably fine as is. I think the key point between the upgrade and the squadron would be the range difference between the Mortar and the Autocannon. An upgrade is less likely to sustain at things beyond 45cm since the autocannons can't fire. However, when moving they have to be within 30cm. From what I read on here that's one of the main reasons why they're not used very often. If you put them in a squadron though that all goes away and suddenly they're effective, as you say. More food for thought anyway. On the snipers, they were proposed to go to 1-2 for 25 back with the 07 revisions but never went through along with the Rough Riders, Commissars and a few others I believe. |
|
| Author: | zombocom [ Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Future of SL - changes? |
As Dave says, dedicated griffon formations work much better than the upgrade, so should cost more per unit. Not sure what adding the chimera option to the stormtroopers is meant to achieve; shouldn't that sort of thing be the domain of varient lists? |
|
| Author: | Spectrar Ghost [ Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Future of SL - changes? |
Definitely in support of the Sniper changes as well, since they've not already been made. |
|
| Author: | Simulated Knave [ Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Future of SL - changes? |
In regard to the Chimeras for Storm Troopers: it was pointed out that Storm Troopers have always been able to take them, and that the Steel Legion is supposed to be even more focused on ground mechanization than average. |
|
| Author: | zombocom [ Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Future of SL - changes? |
Understood, but I don't think that sort of change should be done to main lists. Points changes, fine, stat changes, fine, but adding effectively a new formation is the preserve of varient lists, not official ones. |
|
| Author: | GlynG [ Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Future of SL - changes? |
Good to see this list of changes to test Rug! I'm in favour of all the mentioned options. I like the option of 3 Griffons for 75 points - they have two exposed crew in the rear loading and aiming the gun, so armour 6+ is appropriate. Your reasoning for why the other vehicles have the armour they do makes sense too. Spectrar Ghost wrote: The Cadian 200pt Griffon Platoon is if anything, slightly undercosted, IMO. It has exactly the same effect as two Squadrons, so it should scale easily. As an upgrade, the Indirect fire is less useful, but I think they are probably fine as is. You're comparing apples and oranges. A dedicated formation of 6 Griffons probably is worth 200 points or a bit over though – the costing and use for it is different. zombocom wrote: I don't think that sort of change should be done to main lists. Points changes, fine, stat changes, fine, but adding effectively a new formation is the preserve of varient lists, not official ones. That sort of change has already been done to rulebook lists though. We have altered the rules to allow Attack Bikes in Thunderhawks and Hunters with Predators, which are effectively new formation combinations not possible in the original list. The Swords of Vaul formation in the Net-EA Eldar list is also new formation of units in an official list, with Fire Prisms now being mixed in with Falcons and Fire Storms and at an optionally larger sized formation to boot. I’d argue the official list got it wrong by not including the option in the main list in the first place. I don’t see Storm Troopers in Chimeras as being any more radical or variant than Devestators in Razorback, say. It was me that suggested the change – have a read of this thread if any of you missed it, rather than me repeating all the arguments here. What are peoples opinions on Leman Russ / Demolisher upgrade? They’re a decent unit in some ways, but if they are attached to Mech Inf they slow them down a lot and if they're attached to just infantry they make them vulnerable to AT. Perhaps 175 points may be a better cost for them? Lastly, I have a more controversial suggestion. The consensus opinion seems to be that the best formations in the list are the Mechanised Infantry and Regimental HQ formations. Though they have their uses in some ways, Leman Russ and Artillery Companies are often felt to be poorer choices. Might it be worth slightly increasing the cost of the Req. HQ and Mech. Inf. by 25 points each and slightly decreasing the cost of the Artillery Company and Tank Company by 25 points each? I don’t know if this has been discussed before or not and haven’t necessarily thought it through thoroughly, but it seems like a potentially good idea that could encourage a bit more diversity in the competitive armies. |
|
| Author: | GlynG [ Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Future of SL - changes? |
Rug wrote: There is an enclosed Armaggedon Griffon variant made by Forge World, oddly though the SL seem to use normal open topped Griffons! It was probably down to Specialist Games only having a certain amount of budget for new models. They designed a new enclosed Salamander model for Steel Legion, but had to cut back and drop Salamanders from the list entirely. Those Forge World 'Vanaheim pattern' Griffons (which I believe came out more recently than the Epic list) are only half armoured, rather than fully covered like the 'Armageddon pattern' Basilisks. If a shell landed behind them and hit the vehicle from this angle the crew would be in trouble, particularly with all that exposed ammo. That said, I do see 5+ armour as a reasonable alternative, though I think the cheaper cost option is better (and appropriate to the armour of the models sold). Rug wrote: because I think it will make such little difference to the balance, and it does fit with the fluff, I'll probably run a poll at a later date. Goodo, thanks! |
|
| Author: | Onyx [ Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Future of SL - changes? |
Rug wrote: Snipers: 1-2 25pts each I'm definitely in favour of this.Quote: Hellhounds: 125pts for 3 These suggestions would certainly see me more interested in using these upgrades (can't remember ever using them before).Griffons: 75pts for 3* Leman Russ Upgrade: 175pts for 3 Quote: Storm Troopers: 4 Chimera 100pts or 4 Valkaries 150pts As long as it doesn't step on any variant lists toes I like having the options this change provides. They can still Garrison which I like.Quote: Emperor Class Battleship: Int 1+ I agree with this. Nothing would be worse than having to wait until the 3rd turn and then failing the activation roll!
|
|
| Author: | frogbear [ Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Future of SL - changes? |
Onyx wrote: Rug wrote: Emperor Class Battleship: Int 1+ I agree with this. Nothing would be worse than having to wait until the 3rd turn and then failing the activation roll!Mind you, if your opponent also has a SS, and their initiative is better than yours, you may never see this actually hit the board until turn 4 - if it ever goes to that. So very risky no matter what its Initiative is. |
|
| Page 1 of 6 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
