(Moscovian @ Oct. 31 2007,15:58)

QUOTE

Why can't we just put a simple line in the rules saying, "Only formations on board with BMs can regenerate."? Tack it onto the existing rule and you've clarified it.  Of course people may still disagree with it claiming it is counter-intuitive (which I can see), but at least it would take the confusion out of the whole thing.

(Moscovian @ Oct. 31 2007,15:53)

QUOTE

I read this and didn't get much out of it in the way of an answer.   The brief analysis you did doesn't do the power of the Destroyers justice.  They are fast skimmers that have the fighting capacity of Predators and can regenerate, travel through portals, and can claim all sorts of cover because they are infantry.  Comparing them to Dark Reapers is ridiculous since Reapers have a move of 15cm and get 2 x AP5+.  Destroyers have double their move base, get 2xAP4 or AT6+ (increasing their flexibility) , the same firefight, but never have to worry about a CC assault since they are skimmers.    The speed alone makes up for the range difference.  You can also swap them out for Heavy Destroyers and their big AT guns.

EDIT: I forgot.  Destroyers and Heavy Destroyers also get an armor of 4+ compared to Reapers at 5+.

Now you know my beef is not with them being infantry but it should nonetheless be listed on its list of benefits.  You also said you don't want them to be LVs but you seem to be hesitant to reduce their fighting capacity which IMO is a mistake.  

It seems that you are acknowledging that they are too much for too little.  So the basics are:
* Something has to change.
* You don't want them to be LVs.
*Changing to LV status means people with existing armies get the grand adventure of re-basing their models.
* AVs is way out.
* They have all the benefits of Predators and Dark Reapers and only one liability (they are AP which makes them slightly easier to hit on template weapons).

Cut their weaponry in half, drop their price to 300 points, and they will STILL be a bargain purchase.

(Moscovian @ Oct. 31 2007,16:20)

QUOTE

So they can regenerate on a Marshall or hold action without BMs but not on a rally without BMs, correct?  Okay, I'll take a stab at it later tonight and see if I can come up with something that will suit everybody.

(Moscovian @ Oct. 31 2007,16:37)

QUOTE

I don't hate the idea of making them LVs, I'm not opposed to it, I've just been avoiding it because it just seems wrong in that jarring sense.  

But I would like to test them in their present status first.  You should know by now that I don't like to do a lot of changes to anything at once.  Small changes over time are the best way to make an adjustment, that way at each stage you can see which direction the need tweaking next instead of running all over the place

(Moscovian @ Oct. 31 2007,16:48)

QUOTE

You are right - I had it backwards.  Now it makes even less sense with the Destroyers taking no nerf at all.  The only thing you've done is ensured that people never take the Heavy Destroyers. 2 x AT6+ still gives a 31% chance of hitting their armored target compared to the 50% chance they would have with Heavy Destroyers.  I'd give up 19% to have the AP flexibility and the extra shots any day.

You have two solutions from the forum and you didn't take either of them.  Instead you are proposing a change that in effect doesn't change anything except eliminates Heavy Destroyers as a viable choice.  The horrific formation annihilator is still out there with the same stats and will have the same effect on the list.

I will never lose as long as I field two formations of Destoyers.  Never.

(hiddenevil @ Oct. 31 2007,07:13)

QUOTE

blackstone fortress parts, genius, it looks awesome Onyx