(Soren @ Jan. 24 2008,13:29)
QUOTE
Retinue for 275?
6 units of marines with a FREE Lord AND fearless for 275, thas 75 pts cheaper than loyal marines with a better FF value. Only 30cm shooting but disrupt to compensate. Sure not. Drop fearless and we can talk about this for sure.
Cross-army comparisons are especially problematic. It requires careful consideration of all factors. If you're going to compare it, compare all of it and pay careful attention to both army context and in-game factors that don't show up in straight number-crunching comparisons. In fact, I'd say that for cross-army comparisons, it's far better to consider them in general terms and forgo direct number-crunching altogether.
To make those formations as close to identical as possible, the EC would also have to buy transport that the marines get for free. The difference is ~25 points, not 75.
As far as contextual elements, You did not take into account that the SMs have better strategy, substantially better strategy during play (assuming the 2d6 change). The overall per-unit cost of the EC is higher, meaning the army as a whole will have fewer models and (Scout issues aside) have less power to control territory. The area control issue is further aggravated by the generally lower ranges for EC. Players who take the scout titans or aircraft to boost activations also make that issue more of a problem as those formations have even less ability to hold territory.
That looks like they are in the same ballpark. A 25 point difference seems like a reasonable point cost to test.
Also, if you're going to do cross-army comparions, it helps to compare them to similar formations in as many armies as possible to gain additional perspective on the contextual issues.
For example, 6 EC versus 8 CSM for the same (theoretical) price of 275. Both have a Lord. The EC have less range. They have more resistance to destruction after breaking but considerably less durability against breaking and outright kills. The higher FF does not compensate for the difference in numbers. The EC have lesser range and fewer shots. Disrupt makes up for that, but only if the range does not force additional movement, reducing the chances to hit. Obviously, the EC have the ability to do the Fearless-blocking tactic.
As far as context, the EC have the same SR for setup but a lower effective SR for game play. EC have fewer options for upgrades and if they were to purchase transport, the EC would actually be more expensive. The comparison of overall area denial for the EC versus CSM looks worse than it is when compared to loyal Marines because CSM armies have a lower per-unit cost.
That looks pretty close to me as well. It certainly doesn't seem unreasonable to try 275.
On top of all the evidence from more extensive "theoryhammer" comparisons pointing to it being a reasonable point cost, the changes people are recommending are based on playtest experience, which is, ultimately, the best authority.
We all know fearless is better than ATSKNF, at least this is my experience.
)
