Quote: (Irondeath @ 04 Sep. 2008, 14:52 )
Since I´ve just commented on the other armies´ character issue, I´ll jump straight to the BL part. The "superior firepower" bit strikes me as somewhat odd as BL lacks the raw shooting power of IG or certain Eldar and has to engage for decisive results, which is a major difference. When you fail to Sustain, you just Hold and blast away with reduced effects, an orky favourite if I may add (And they don´t reroll those failed Sustains).
When an Engage fails, especially after summoning, you go from decisively beating the enemy to placing a BM or 3 and maybe killing a single stand.
Your mentioning of the Strat Rating brings up the question how much the superior SM Strat would be worth, since arguments here revolve around costing ATSKNF.
SR5 gives much better odds going first.
[- - -SNIP- - -]
Dropping Leader would be out of the question IMO, CSM are not anything like Eldar and their "promotion system" does not suffer incompetents either. Also, BL formations lacking Leader have a definite BM-management problem, if you´ve ever fielded the 8xLand Raider formation you´ll know what I´m talking about.
Otherwise I´m hoping for Lord Inquisitor to come up with an updated change list real soon.
Just like the Warlord is not 'Fearless', it doesn't provide extra shooting
The additional MW attack
does help greatly in assaults, especially when attached to Chosen or Raptors. Many of the upgrades provide extra shooting ability should you desire it, but usually at the cost of speed. However, lack of speed is not such a great handicap as I have been trying to demonstrate. Also as Neal noted on PG's latest list, the addition of cult marines and Havocs to a Retinue will allow it to command a large part of the table (let alone the ability to summon daemons).
Regarding Leader, the ability to clear BMs combined with the high SR does mean the BL tend to have a very high activation rate and that they will go first. For SM, this allows them to focus their (IMO) much weaker forces, and to make use of their high manoeuverability. CSM on the other hand make use of their (often significantly) stronger formations to destroy nearby enemy, and to weather any retaliation. For what it is worth, one point difference in the SR (eg SM Vs BL) means that the higher SR army should win 63% of the rolls, losing only 21% outright. I am not quite sure how you can cost that advantage other than to note that in a straight up fight between 'equivalent' formations of Space marines and BL, the additional BL numbers mean they they have a good chance of winning irrespective of who initiated the assault.
As to the BL working without 'Leader'; I suggest that it might slow the army down a tad (possibly to a more acceptable level), but it would not make it unplayable any more than 'leaderless' SM formations are. I cannot comment on the Chaotic promotion system
other than to note that my suggestions were an attempt to reduce the force multiplication effects inherent in this particular part of the list design with the constraint that "all CSM forces have warlords" laid down by PG.
Finally, I still contend that the list is not inherently 'broken' per se, but rather that the force multiplication effects caused by combining various design concepts can make it become overpowered in certain circumstances - eg the improved chances of going first combined with Daemon summoning, which can turn a calculated risk into a foregone conclusion.
