At the moment I'm leaning towards 15cm all-hated and no free pact for the next version.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Why do you need to be within 15cm of each other to support in assaults? Just position your units carefully.

The new rule if anything makes it easier for factions to coexist as now any two can operate together with care. Problems only arise when units are very close together - which IMO is characterful as it shows different Gods followers working together but difficulties arising if they got tooo close to each other.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

EpicUK aren't doing LatD at this stage - as for general Chaos I believe the EUK factions rule will be unchanged. Though the development of EpicUK lists follows different parameters than the NetEA lists.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

the free pact rule had quite a flavour.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I think it should be 30cm.

I like 15cm as it seems a short enough range to promote tactical play (although it will likely require some points changes if lists end up overpowered) rather than the strategic (list building) play of the 30cm rule.


As we all know, there's another game that promotes Strategic instead of Tactical play (as the current rule does) and it's called Warhammer 40,000!


Dropping the free pacts seems fine as the list is already very powerful.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Are you serious?

I have trouble seeing any army that can be made from this list that is impervious to clipping assaults and skimmers.

Maybe I just have not played enough games with/against this force, so please, can someone enlighten me on what is so powerful about this army?

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Why? What experience with the force would bring you to this conclusion?

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Oh, but the story behind the picture is so much more interesting , but that's off topic, so sadly, I cannot say any more.

On the topic in hand:

GlynG: You raise precisely my concern.  The number of failed initiative tests there was very high, and I think it's already a problem for LatD as it stands, given their average initiative making it risky to retain, and that's without this crazed idea for changing the factions rule.  I comepletely agree with you regarding your concerns .

Steve54: The old saying 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' surely ought to apply in this case.  If the factions rule is so desperately needed, why would Epic UK not adopt it?  I am aware they have their own way of doing things, but surely if the rule change is so desperately warranted because the force is so badly overpowered when dual God armies are fielded they would adopt it?

The indication that they will not tells me all I need to know about the rule to be quite honest, and the fact that 15cms is the range for providing supporting fire is crucial.  Are you really suggesting that I can keep my formations in range to support each other during engagements, and out of range when initiative roles are made?  If so, I'm afraid I'm unconvinced.

I have no doubt that you are a better player than me, but that alone does not make it right to change the rules, and I am still not seeing any evidence as to why this change is necessary, and, as has been repeatedly pointed out, it flies in the face of background.  To that end, I repeat my question.  Why do you want to make a change which seems to be based on nothing but arbitrary factors?

Evil and Chaos: Please don't try to bring the 40K versus Epic argument into this.  I know where you are coming from, and I agree with you in the broad sense, but it does not apply to this rule in my opinion.  How does enforcing an arbitrary range, which has been plucked out of the air, seemingly at random promote tactical play?  I cannot see it myself, all it does it lead to the sorts of problems GlynG referred to in his post, and where is the tactical play in that?  It just looks like a way of restricting dual God armies for no good reason other than some of you seem to have a grudge against them for reasons I cannot fathom.

_________________

That should be pretty easy to achieve, to be honest, especially with the 5cm post-Engagement consolidation move.



The 30cm range on the rule has been proven to promote certain army construction styles to the exclusion of others, whilst the 15cm range would theoretically allow for different factions to cooperate within a single army, as long as you are careful in your movements.

So to put it simply; 30cm promotes "list building in a particular style" to win your games as multi-factions cooperating is clearly proving very difficult with the 30cm zone, and 15cm promotes "list building in any style, but with manouever tactics required to mitigate the potential drawback of -1 to your activations".

So one promotes list-building, and the other promotes in-game manouever.

In other words, one is like Warhammer 40,000, and one is not.


I have no grudge, but I do have opinions. If you disagree with my opinions, then attack my opinions... but please do not attack me, because that's just rude.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Yes - it promotes army build style that actually fit the rich background and themes of the chaos powers whilst discouraging or making difficult combinations of hated powers which actually would not play well in close proximity - this is a good thing! The other powers are rivals but are not averse to working together when it suits them and do not hate each other and should have no penalties for working together on an epic scale. Elsewhere you are good on the background but this seems to be a blind spot for you unfortunately. Heck if you want to play chaos without being bothered about the characters of the particular powers go play the Red Corsairs list with it's generic demons or the Vraks list for guard, but do not screw up the character of the LaTD list and list builds for those who choose to fight with the allied powers fight together. To sell more toys to 10 year olds who might be confused or put off by the fact the pink ones and the red ones don't get on GW further dumbed down and blanded out the newer codexes and got rid of the limitations but that does not mean we should follow suit here, nor that we should extend limitations where not appropriate or ever done by GW even in smaller 30mm scale combat.

Or we can just stick with the best option of 0cm for the non-hating powers as has always been the case up until now and which is wanted and supported by most LaTD players on this forum.

When the Space Marine list was being reviewed and re-balanced the Warhound Titan was recognised as being too good and too often taken. The solution taken was to correct the balance my tweaking the points of that particular unit, if instead a new rule giving -1 initiative to it or friendly formations had been introduced for spurious reasons there would have been outcry from people! A fix to an existing list which produces more failed initiative tests and failed rallies does not promote good tactics or generalship it is just plain wrong, annoying and bad list management. Slight tweaks to stats/points to fix the relevant units as is done elsewhere is the best and appropriate method  

It fits the old background, not the new.


Yeah they do, I've read plenty of Black Library books (including the "Liber Chaotica") where any and all factions fight each other.


I should be, considering I damn near ended up writing the stuff.
*shakes fist at Robbin Cruddace*



The old rules were designed to sell four armies to 10 year olds.
The new rules are designed to sell one bigger army to 10 year olds.

I see no difference.


Aye, in Warhammer 40,000 the "hatred" rule has been removed entirely. Something I would support for Epic too, if there was backing for it.



If the fault is in the special rule, then you fix the special rule.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

It comes down to this:


- What effect is the rule meant to have?

"It is meant to counterbalance the extra power that comes of having multiple factions in one army list, and also represent the background"


- What effect is the rule having?

"The rule means that nobody is bothering with multi-faction lists and everybody is taking either non-hated pairs or mono faction lists"


- Is the rule therefore doing what it is meant to? (Enhance theme, and balance multi-faction lists)

"No. All it is doing is influencing the army-list building stage... in-game it is having *ZERO* effect"



Therefore, the Factions rule as it stands is a flawed rule, and should be either fixed (so as to actually have the effect it is meant to have) or removed (for whatever reason).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter