I don’t see any especial problem or need to change the current system, and do think it is better left as is really.

However, so long as you adopt BLs idea of having the basic formation be 280 points for 6 Thunderers and all other tanks then be an upgraded cost on top of this so the current costings can be preserved as is then that is the main thing. The thing I most object to in your current draft proposal is the points costs are now are not the same, but approximations of your own designing that change the points costs of the formations for whims of formatting.

What are you talking about, mnb?

As I said, the "points structure change" was dicussed with the Minervan Army Sub-Champion (who is allowed to change things as he/she sees fit) and was given a tentative "thumbs up" for the draft review: so it could be discussed by the wider community.

Who is "swooping in" in all this?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Yes, approximations for discussion; you don't see the word "DRAFT" in there in your copy?  Nothing is set in stone.

Are you going to argue against changes if actual point values are changed during the Minervan review?  This reformating is all part of that process.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Er, why wouldn't someone want to use a cheap core formation at times to get access to more support formations?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

On the Stormhammer, how about losing the lascannons entirely? Historically the unit never had them.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Waiting on a few more Batreps before calling it finished. I may ajust the Krieg list slightly too, though not majorly.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Well nowadays every super-heavy tank has lascannons on its sponsons. Only the FW Shadowsword in IA: Apocalypse has them replaced with targeters (but still with the option to be upgraded to Lascannons).
And every super-heavy tank has the ability to add a second pair of sponsons for a reduced side armour value.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

@Chroma: I think you have done a tremendous job so far, speeding up the review process, which I think has been losing momentum lately. I also think you have to realize that the changes you discuss via pm:s or e-mail with your fellow champions or sub-champions is not seen by other members of the forum. Changes from the previous lists will be seen as "your" work.

As to the price structure on the Russ company, I found the system in Raiders quite elegant. I am also a bit concerned that a "standard" Steel Legion Tank Company will cost 660 in a Minervan Tank Legion. I know a more correct approach would use half points, but that was what I thought was so elegant with the previous system. That being said, I still have not assembled enough armour to play the list, so I cannot say what effects it has.

As for the Destroyer, I agree with what has been said. An upgraded Russ should have MW, not TK. I think that is a step too far.

I own a few of the old Stormhammers, and I think the current version is overgunned compared to the actual model.

/Fredmans

_________________
Follow my Epic painting projects: Tyranids vs Steel Legion and Inquisition vs Lost and the Damned @
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14636

  Thanks !!      

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Agreed.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

Okay, WAY too funny.  Although everybody needs to remember that the actual value of the tanks won't be changed here (Destroyer being the exception), it is just the presentation.  I could care less.  The NetERC doesn't like how it looks and that means that others are probably confused by it too.

Here is my take on it.  BlackLegion's suggestion is a good one.  It still maintains the same format and makes it all addition for those mathematically challenged individuals who have trouble with this symbol -

All kidding aside though, if this is the biggest problem facing the list then I consider the endeavor a success.  Let the NetERC publish whatever they see fit as the best for the community.  The Raiders update will have both the original chart and the one from the Compendium as well.  We can make everyone happy on this one.

I'll post some new Stormhammer stats soon.  If we can get a blitz of playtesting with them that would be appreciated.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

I like BlackLegion's suggestion and will implement it in the Death Korps list.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Of course not! Changes made in develop for the balance the list are obviously fine.

I objected to the fact your draft proposal changed the points for the tank formation, for reasons of your own preferences of formatting and not the good of the list and that these were implemented there without public discussion or consulting one of the army champion’s whose lists it would effect.

So long as you amend your army book to the system proposed by BL where the basic formation is 6 Thunderers for 280 and everything else is an upgrade then the points will all be the same then that is a good compromise that keeps people happy and it’s pointless going on about it any further  

Keep up the good work anyway! I may grumble about little details but I’m very happy to see this progressing and at a good speed  

Why 6 Thunderers? The Minervan Tank Company consists of 10 Tanks (2 may be rare ones).

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

I'm not sure if you're trying to be condescending and gruff or not, so I'll take this with my most positive approach.

First off, as I've said many times, this is a DRAFT document, intended to generate discussion and analysis before a "final" copy is released.  I had mentioned it to Moscovian and he was fine with a trial implementation.  I just divided by 10 and put in the closest point values in increments of 5 I could get to.  I had no idea the Kriegers used the same system for a couple of tanks until I later got to that list; I hadn't seen E&C on Messenger like I usually do, so I didn't have the opportunity to discuss it with him until after I'd posted it.

And, just so you know, in regard to "preferences of formatting", I did the layout for the orignal Minervan list, so that crazy checkerboard of points was my idea for implementation.



Second, this is not "MY" army book.  This is the NetEA army book.  To imply I've got some agenda to "swoop down" and change army lists to my own preference is ridiculous and, honestly, offensive.  I'll change the army list to whatever the Army Champions decide it should be and that includes any point changes.

And, I'm sorry, but your posts were not "grumbling", but accusations of some kind of underhandesness.  I'd appreciate an apology.

(As an aside, it seems that any army that contains a large portion of ForgeWorld models seems to bring out the worst in people when changes are being made.)

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?