I'm a bit late. I have moved so I couldn't answer here for some time till i got Internet again.
jimmyzimms wrote:
yeah I'm saying take Ulani as a base, add some NetEA options to it, and do some 5 game tests (treating it fundamentally as an 'approved list' already) and call it good. It has some issues, just like Minervans do, but those are mainly around mono builds but when taken together as a gestalt view of all the Guard lists, that is somewhat mitigated. It's almost no effort for a collector to use the same base for field those two list + SL in one go (i painted exactly one more coy of LR tanks and had it covered).
Sounds good.
GlynG wrote:
I think the Epic UK version of AT2+ Sniper is more appropriate as it’s still gets a -1 to the enemy armour save and it gets to pick specific enemy targets so it can target an enemy command or AA vehicle or whatever as per it’s sniping background. With the Epic UK ones having scout a 3 strong formations of them get to garrison on overwatch as a powerful but easy to break formation that is unusual but very characterful for the unit. Shrug up to you all though, I can suggest it as a good option that seems balanced in the UK list but it’s not my call to make.
I investigated this a bit, and they went on EA lists from being slightly worse Vanquishers in the rulebook, to Sniper with NetEA, and later back to the official stats, to finally going the TK route. It probably has to do with role or with changes in wh40k background, or simply the usual power creep in wh40k editions.
Dave wrote:
Abetillo wrote:
While it is not completely true, as now Scarik is against both changes and some others are not interested in deleting LR companies like they pretty much are with your proposal
I read that as objecting to using Hellhounds/Griffons as a company (ie, core formation).
There is an ''and'' in his words, he meant both things. Also, that doesn't adress the others.
Dave wrote:
I also don't follow how the change is giving up on them? Any list you can build with the current approved list you can build with this playtest list. It's completely backwards compatible.
You are not mentioning this time the key word we both used, companies, which you wrote on the first post here.
Dave wrote:
II've found a competive list is doable with super-heavy companies, but not so with Russ companies. [...] and dropping the Russ company?
Being backwards compatible does not change the fact. Almost every change on an approved NetEA or EpicUK list has been to change what people usually take on a game, not what can be taken, and almost no one takes LR companies if there is Platoons, as proved time and time again by many other lists, like for example Ulani.
On about major changes, if making what could be the biggest change to an approved list is not major ... then there is nothing else i can say. Changing both most of what is going to usually be taken on games and the basic gameplay theme of both Minerva and IG lists in EA have ...
About your examples of major changes on a list, they are not even changes on a list, but a change of a list for another, as they are around the same as switching Minerva with Ulani which are almost polar opposites in IG tank theme (slower and tough heavy maul blows with small hits as support, vs fast, aggressive and all more fragile hammer hits).