The rules used to deal with this situation. They don't now :-)

Part of the reason was that it added a level of abstraction and complexity to the game that wasn't deemed to be appropriate.

I think that perhaps we might want an FAQ entry that says that in the case of OW fire against a charging unit that the unit can't claim cover due to its movement as per the rules for Assaults.

The implication there is that the assaulting formation can't benefit from the cover due to moving and I think we can extend that for a OW fire at assaulting formations as well.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

Some observations from the BL perspective

Supreme Commander
On more than one occasion during the game I remarked to Alansa near the start of each turn that I was going to attempt something slightly risky, knowing that I had a Supreme Commander reroll to bail me out. As some know, I tend to have poor luck with my dice, and yet often play Eldar without an Autarch (Eldar SC) because I can never decide whether to use the reroll or not. In the BL games to-date, I do not think I have missed an activation at all, and only rarely needed the Re-roll. I tend to be a little 'reckless' in my games and having the Reroll certainly encouraged this tendency.

As the BL have such good initiative and Strategy ratings, I suggest that they can easily do without it. Consequently, IMO the SC ought to be optional in line with the Marines, though possible costed at 50 points rather than 100 points.

Strategy and initiative
This is one area that is key to the success of the BL, allowing them to pre-empt the opponents strategy. In this game, I was able to do this in both turn #1 and #2 by using pre-emptive strikes on key formations in my first activiation (which I successfully retained). In this game, one Chosen formation got stopped by OW, but had it succeeded, the game would have essentially been ended much sooner. Alansa and I did discuss this briefly after the game and felt it was an advantage that the ability to summon Daemons only compounded.

IMO (and I think Alansa agrees here), finding a way to reduce this initiative would be helpfull in redressing the balance issues. While it would probably be unacceptable to do so accross the board, a suggestion would be that the loss (or absence) of the warlord reduces the initiative to +2.

Daemons
As they stand I am begininning to think they are just too good. With the initiative advantage, BL formations can mount crippling attacks with fairly mundane formations. The lack of mobility that ought to be a problem does not seem to be as big a draw back as was felt to be the case.

Daemon Prince
And why would you not want to take as many as you can??? They act as a form of shield absorbing hits, provide additional attacks and add inspiring to the formation (apart from being Fearless as well). In this game I mistakenly declared two Khorne DPs, but in practice one was assasinated so actually this caused no issues at all. Otherwise they performed 'as advertised', killing stuff in assault, and saving hits in return.

The "Flappy" DP also had an unexpected use in Retinue #2 by providing a spare slot in a Rhino. This allowed the formation to march to a strategically usefull position by dropping a single unit - I would have been much more reluctant to drop two units

Raptors and Bikes
6-8 Raptors seem to work well, but smaller formations are too fragile. In this game they were able both to make use of their speed to take a good position, and also win the subsequent assault.

Both formations are good for harrasing and with 4+ FF, they are good for supporting assaults as well. Bikes seem less usefull, maily because they have to drive round terrain rather than flying over it.

I have not put pact on either formation yet, but have a horrible suspicion that an extra 4x Lesser Daemons would make them both big-time killers, especially if the daemons had long distance assault capabilities.

Factions
The "Hated" rule has no effect, or at least it is easily overlooked in the heat of battle. The 'Factions' only really force you to decide on what type of Daemon you want to employ for given formations, and can this be a little confusing. In this game, I tried to use "CC" daemons for the Chosen and "FF" daemons for the Retinues both to give them more tactical flexibility and reach.

In practice, Retinue #1 really shone because the "FF" daemons virtually doubled its firepower and reach, while I did get a little lucky with the armour saves shrugging off the few hits in reply. As such it really dominated the centre-right of the battlefield.

Conversley, Chosen #1 with the "CC" daemons did less well after their initial success, so arguably did not earn their points other than to provide the Stompa mob with a little target practice.

In summary, while I really like the 'chrome' provided by Factions, it does add a level of complexity that can be confusing. I can't help feeling there ought to be better ways to achieve this, though I cannot think of any at present.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

There remains the problem that the list has been tested for more than two years with the SC as is and every game has used him. If you remove it as a free option and then add it at a cost then we've effectively removed 50 to 100 points from the army and that needs to be addressed if you want to remove the option and reprice it.

You also basically just said that it wasn't of any use to you so why is it then an issue?

So you want people to pay for something that you didn't find of much use?

This is one area that is key to the success of the BL, allowing them to pre-empt the opponents strategy.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

Not sure how you are taking a "spare" Rhino since the DP can't be transported in it and therefore you shouldn't be allowed to purchase it. I also think that you're stretching to make a point here. Does the CSM list now have a "March advantage"?

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

Gavin - the Daemon Prince isn't inspiring.

How can you effectively use them without putting them with Chosen?
Put them with Chosen and you run the risk of losing strategy roll and of overwatch - as you yourself have found - paying 115 pts for DP adds to the gamble

On foot with retinue - end up just guarding an objective

With wings and retinue+rhinos - end up walking anyway as rhinos get sniped so never make combat either

Whilst you've talked about DPs and BL tourney results they are largely unconnected - the majority of BL points are from myself and Nathan. Nathan has never used a DP - and has dropped the Chosen too, I used a DP at 2 tourneys - FSA+CC- and in 8 games the DP was involved in 3 assaults - so I have dropped it too - for the London tourney (and have stripped down my chosen to go after soft targets)

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

Latest proposed changes for the Daemon Prince have dropped TK from the assault stats, but added 'Inspiring' by way of compensation - which is what we were playing. IMO, this actually increases the power rather than decreasing it as I get into more assaults, though PG (and others) prefer the TK ability for going after "hard" targets.

So far I have played Retinues with them mainly on foot to start with - which allows them to garrison off an objective. Even if that is the Blitz with one straggler 15 cms away, this allows the main body to be positioned some 20-30 cms from the table edge, and so able to double to the centre of the table in the first turn. Using other objectives you can get even further.

With a "flappy" DP, as TRC has said, you can get better coutercharge and it also allows the DP to be in the front of any assault irrespective of the original position in the Retinue.

And the high SR with high initiative does mean that you will get to play first at least three times out of five for all opponents except Eldar and Marines, Less of a gamble than it seems IMHO

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

When Gavin played these games the DP was to have Inspiring(from proposed changes) but the Lord I's playtest list doesn't include it for the DP.

This is really hardly any sort of big deal though.

Normally they shouldn't be allowed. 1+ initiative is ridiculous in most cases, unless really needed it. Space Marines *do* need it in most because their formations are small.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

So? Everyone can do this?

You guys are bringing up points that apply to a lot of, and sometimes all, armies in the game as if they were problematic and I really can't see how this is the case.

Ever seen an Ork player use this same tactic with 'Uge Mobs? Its ugly as hell.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

It also means that he is then away from a lot of support and sometimes on his own in assaults.

In either case this isn't in and of itself problematic.

And the high SR with high initiative does mean that you will get to play first at least three times out of five for all opponents except Eldar and Marines, Less of a gamble than it seems IMHO

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

Quote: (alansa @ 07 Sep. 2008, 00:06 )

Because the flappy DP moves 30 it doesn't need to use it's rhino slot that it would normally take up alongside a normal unit. When I bombed his retinue the first time I killed one rhino. Normally this would have left 2 units stranded. However since the DP was not using his rhino slot Ginger only needed to drop one stranded unit.

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

Not a lot of people disagree and they are proposed to be removed in any case specifically since they have so little effect.

Ini 2+ will lead to BL formations failing engage actions all the time (a BM is granted when you are that close to the enemy, so you have to roll 3+, 4+ on the retain).

Ini 2+ is the reason why I have given up on kitting my LatD armies for assaults, they fail constantly, usually hideously exposed out of cover and close to the enemy.

If you want to ruin the list, that´s the way to do it.

IG can cope much better with failed action tests since they can Hold and the shoot to good effect, BL can´t.

_________________
Visit www.epic-battles.de the ultimate german epic site&forum!

Ok good reasoning Irondeath. We can see a general principle here then: Armys that are not very shooty (eg space marines) require 1+ Init because they cannot shoot their way out of command cock-ups.

You forgot about the Warlord though. My suggestion was that the Warlord's free re-roll helps to compensate much as an Ork warlord helps orks in their command failures (especially when doing tactical shooty moves)

Grant me license though, Irondeath, to perhaps have a little test with Gavin sometime to see for myself.

Note also that BL *is* a 2+ Ini army. It is only made 1+ by the slight-of-hand of avoiding hated factions. If the intention is that it should be (by-and-large) 1+ then I think should say so,l with a -1 mod when near hated factions. As it is, it seems to indicates a general design intention of 2+.  Can anyone inform what the intention is? The hated faction rules seem to assume that they would be in use and have some real effect, and did not consider they could or would be easily avoided.

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]