Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Emperor's Children Development - Updated List 14 June 2010
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=18298		 Page 1 of 10
Author:  frogbear [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:41 am ]
Post subject:  Emperor's Children Development - Updated List 14 June 2010
NOTE: This thread has been moved onto the next stage of development.

Please click on the following link to go there: viewtopic.php?f=82&t=18600

All links here are being made redundant.

===============================================================

Hello Everyone

Updated: 14 June 2010 3:00PM AEST

Emperor's Children V3.3 Play Document

- It is a Play Document : A quick reference to use at the gaming table. A proper copy with full datafaxes can be done at a later time

Let us know what you think.

Cheers.....


Side note: Full credit to Lord Inquisitor for his list which this was the backbone for the creation of this one.

;)
Author:  adam77 [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Emperor's Children V1.2
That is a cool pic. Do you know who the artist is?

edit: i got it, Adrian Smith
Author:  frogbear [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Emperor's Children V1.2
Yes. I liked it enough to use it.

Any comments on the list itself?
Author:  nealhunt [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Emperor's Children V1.2
Why have the Ecstasy ecstasy rule? Is there a weakness in the list this is supposed to address? It seems superfluous.

I think you have more infantry types than needed. Non-Fearless legionaries are definitely needed so the Decadent makes sense. I think you can tweak the others down.
  • The Possessed are basically 2 entirely different units crammed together on one stat line and one formation. If you don't drop one they at least need to be broken out separately.
  • The Scout Possessed aren't needed. They have the same stats as Decadents, just adding Scout and First Strike. It's very "like these guys... but better."
  • I don't think Havoks are needed. There are plenty of fire support options in the list, including iconic Slaaneshi options like the Knights and Questor.

There are also modeling issues with having too much variety in infantry. There are a limited number of chaos marine infantry models readily available.


I don't understand the mixed formations. I can grasp the desire to have non-Fearless units mixed in with Fearless units so the formation has pressure act "normal." I just don't know whether that's really necessary. An all-Fearless Noise Marine formation is only 6 units. That's not nearly the problem that larger Fearless formations present.

Mixed formations force the players to have to count up a greater variety of weapons and attacks every single action. You get into detailed management of unit placement because you have to manage unit ranges and suppression and so on. Basically, it adds fiddliness. Because of that it should increase the game quality so that it's worth it. I have a hard time imagining that is true at the moment.

The need to have easily distinguishable models is also a bit annoying. Having things both match and be readily identified is rather restrictive in terms of modeling and painting. It makes using older models and any sort of "counts as" nearly impossible. (This goes hand in hand with issues above about variety of required models, obviously.)


I'd also drop the Elite/Auxiliary split on the list structure. There are only two reasons to build in restrictions to army list structure - flavor and balance. I don't think either applies here. The Black Legion list allows fairly extreme builds and (excepting the massed-WE concept) they have been balanced, so there's no reason to think the EC will cause major balance problems. As far as flavor, none of the support-heavy focused lists seem antithetical to the legion's structure or the list concept. If someone wants an army with 4 or 5 bike formations or an EC armor wing, I don't see anything wrong with that. Core/support should be sufficient.
Author:  Lord Inquisitor [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 8:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Emperor's Children V1.2
Frogbear - would you care to give a commentary on the changes you made since the last edition and the rationale behind them?
Author:  Simulated Knave [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Emperor's Children V1.2
I rather agree about the structure. It makes it more complicated than it really needs to be, IMO.

I'd kinda like the chance to take pure Noise Marine formations as well, albeit small ones.

The Apostate upgrade feels kind of redundant, what with the way every formation already has a Lord. Feels cluttered. Is he supposed to be a Chaplain equivalent? Because Legion Chaplains were all slaughtered (except the Word Bearers). Right now, all he adds is Daemonic Focus - could he be folded in with the Degenerate?

I'm not sure the EC should have a Painlord. Firstly since they are, AFAIK, the only Legion to have Knight forces instead of Titans - they don't have the same resources to draw on. And second because the Painlord is originally a Khornate thing. I think it'd be a bit more characterful for them to simply have Knights instead of the larger Painlord.
Author:  BlackLegion [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Emperor's Children V1.2
BANElord ist a Khorne thing. The Painlord is the Slaanesh version.
Author:  Simulated Knave [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Emperor's Children V1.2
Good point. :P

I could've sworn reading (on this very forum) about how they shouldn't have Titans, but if they have them, they have them. No worries.
Author:  Lord Inquisitor [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Emperor's Children V1.2
There's no real info one way or the other, the only real fluff is on House Devine, which turned traitor and traditionally the Slaanesh daemon engines are limited to the Knights and Scout titan* derived monstrosities as a consequence, but there's nothing really set in stone linking the House to the Emperor's Children, particularly after the schism of the Legion. There are presumably Slaanesh-turned Titan Legions. I've not read Fulgrim yet, don't know if there's any more info there.

Anyway, there's no reason to say that Emperor's Children shouldn't have reaver- and warlord-class titans, but then again axing them from the list might focus attention on the smaller engines.

*Not quite sure if the Subjugators and Questors were meant to be from House Devine, or if they're from a corrupted Titan Legion and just get lumped in with the Daemon Knights.
Author:  Simulated Knave [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Emperor's Children V1.2
Certainly at least one of the incarnations of the list made specific mention of them in the background.

I'd lean for a compromise solution myself, perhaps offering Ferals and Reaver-Equivalents while replacing Warlords with the Knights. Or even cutting Reavers and just having Ferals and Knights.
Author:  frogbear [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Emperor's Children V1.2
Ecstacy: It's fluffy and works. Redundant? Perhaps. But same can be said for a lot of special rules in other lists. I will go with Steve54's guidance on this one. I would rather leave it for the playtests however.

Regards to list structure: The EC were required to be brought into line with the structure presented in Hena's Death Guard list (mixed troops) and the updated World Eater list. Seeing that was the requirement, that is what I have done. I like it personally (after I have had a good review of it). I think that the whole 'confusing' aspect is quite a weak argument at the moment without seeing the list play-tested. I do not see it as confusing at all. Once things are on a table, it should flow well - good to get the feedback however as that is why it is up now, in preparation for when the June reviews come around.

Possessed marines: give options without having to add separate 'Raptors' and 'Legionaires'. They work and I am inclined to keep them in for any playtests. They also allow for modelling possibilities which I see as a benefit rather than a hinderance.

Apostate: is just like any other Chaos Champion in another list with Daemonic Pact. How is it redundant? How else do you summon? How is it different to any other list?

Looking at all the feedback at the moment so keep it coming. It will all be considered when we come to discuss the structure again for the freeze.
Author:  frogbear [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Emperor's Children V1.2
The War Engine section is pretty much the same as Lord I had them. I liked his design and so I kept it.
Author:  frogbear [ Sat May 01, 2010 7:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Emperor's Children V1.2
nealhunt wrote:
I'd also drop the Elite/Auxiliary split on the list structure. There are only two reasons to build in restrictions to army list structure - flavor and balance. I don't think either applies here. The Black Legion list allows fairly extreme builds and (excepting the massed-WE concept) they have been balanced, so there's no reason to think the EC will cause major balance problems. As far as flavor, none of the support-heavy focused lists seem antithetical to the legion's structure or the list concept. If someone wants an army with 4 or 5 bike formations or an EC armor wing, I don't see anything wrong with that. Core/support should be sufficient.


Just re-reading this part. Noted and will be under consideration
Author:  frogbear [ Sat May 01, 2010 8:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Emperor's Children V1.2
- I started at V1.0 for the version, but if it would stop people having issues with such mundane issues, I will move it to V3.0.

- The Possessed unit stays. I do not want to remove these without playtests. I am unconvinced that such a unit should not exist. It is far better than 'inventing' units such as legionaires. These are in line with the fluff - more-so than other named scout units out there. Possessed can also gain wings so it makes sense to have the unit do either and both.

- Decadents : can always be reviewed. I had Lucius (as per Horus books) in mind as the example for a Decadent Marine as the EC would have held CC to an art - hence they were made as CC. Let's see how they go in playtests. They also balance the 'shooty' formation with some CC when needed.

- Daemon Costs - it was discussed long ago that G. Daemons for cult lists should be 7 summoning posts. Do you even see them used in Marine lists? The reduced cost and summon points was to assist this.

- 6 Strong Knight formation: Possibly correct. It is 450 points. Lets see how they show up in playtests. I can always move them to a 4-only formation. That is not an issue at all for me at least.
Page 1 of 10 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/