Ok, first off, let me help the thread by reminding everyone what the guiding framework is for this list, and that is IA3: Taros Campaign.
Now, like many others, I am excited about IA8 (whatever it is called) and I do intend to update the Elysians to emulate those in the book. There was specific mention of updating the Elysians to be inline with the new IG codex. I do not know what that means exactly, so we'll just have to see.
What that means:
1. I am of two minds on the Vendetta. It is not in IA3 (I try to be consistent), but I like the idea. One concern would be whether or not the Vendetta would make the Vulture unnecessary. After all, would you really take the long range missiles if you could have 3 twin-linked lascannon? I think we should discuss this some given that we would focus on roles, another big design concept in the list. So i) does the Vendetta make the Vulture redundant?
Mosc: Could you break out a new thread for this? The first step would be to come up with the Vendetta stats. I would strive to keep them the same cost as the existing Valks. Then we can discuss them against the Vulture baseline. I'm sort of thinking that the Vulture is going to come out on the short end of comparison, but I'm interested in hearing what others think.
2. No infantry AA. None. We're not going to go there. First off, it violates design rule #1 "Not in IA3", and #2, the lack of ground AA is a design feature and desired (unless aircraft are blowing the beejeebers out of you ÂÂ
). ÂÂ
IA3 was very specific about how dependent the Elysians are on their aircraft and I do not intend to change that. So, if you don't like the other guy's aircraft, bring your own and deal with them.
3. IA8 new vehicles: Yes. When IA8 comes out, I will advance the design framework to base the list around IA8. That would include the fast attack vehicle and the heavy lift Valkyrie. If they bring out something else that looks like it can add value, then I will consider those items on a case by case basis.
Now on to Moscovians comments:
BTW, this was very good feedback and I'm glad to see you take them out for a spin.
Quote:
After four (or five?) games with the Elysians I wanted to throw out some general thoughts on the list.
Overall the list feels balanced, or maybe slightly underpowered.  High activation counts (11-13 range) save the list and the only loss of four (or five) games I took was when I went with heavy formations and 'only' ten activations. ÂÂ
At this point, I am striving for slightly underpowered. I do think that in the face of a determined mechanized foe, the list is going to suffer...which it should.
Quote:
Mortars seem pretty difficult to capitalize on.  Because you can't fire indirectly, the limited range makes them difficult to work with and I would rather spend the points on another fire support team.   Is the reason for not having the indirect fire the 1.9.8 indirect fire minimum range requirement of 30cm?  I'm not sure how to fix it either.  If you up the range to 20cm and add indirect, you end up with a unit that can fire 0-20cm directly, 30-40cm indirectly, and nothing 20-30cm.  Very weird.  Up it higher than 40cm indirect and it seems to be ranging more than mortars should.  Perhaps an indirect fire like the support sentinals that can go 45cm but don't double their range when they fire indirectly.  It would also give the Elysians a chance to shoot something when they are within 10+ cm of woods.  A handy thing to have.
The mortars are certainly quirky. I see them as primarily allowing the formation to place a blast marker, thus helping counteract those gathered while teleporting. I don't think we're done with this unit, so I wouldn't consider the design frozen.
Quote:
On a side note, the support sentinals are not Barrage weapons yet firing indirect, yet the 1.9.8 rule is for barrage weaponry.  It isn't a big deal, but somebody who wanted to nitpick could make a case that non-barrage weapons don't have any business firing indirect at all.  Perhaps some notation in the errata indicating that the indirect fire rules were borrowed for that unit...
I know these aren't perfect either, but they do fit in with their 40K behavior and so I am inclined to watch them for a while before changing.
Quote:
There is a deadly combination if left to its own devices: the Drop Sentinals in Valkyries.  When playing properly, that formation can incinerate an enemy when they get within the 15cm range.  It didn't strike me as broken, just an interesting point.
That is an interesting observation. I never tried that, usually because I have a fixed amount of Valks and that tends to define my lists. I want to bump my Valk/Vultures to all FW, but haven't been able to justify the cost yet.
Quote:
Maurauder Destroyers - I brought them every game.  I love the formation and it was great.  The unit might feel overpowered in any other list but seeing that it is the only WE in the Elysian list, it did not get any raised eyebrows (especially when they found out how much it cost).  My only concern is what felt like my own perceived reliance on it.  I felt naked without the formation.
Interesting. I always seemed to struggle to find the points for these. I may be looking at the issue backwards, in that I should buy them first then work other things around them.
Quote:
Lightning Strike Fighters - used them once and they seemed like good units.
I took these instead of the MD's due to the points budget.
Quote:
Lightning Fighters - I am glad we went with four fighters, even though the formation underperformed, and here is why: ÂÂ
These things are killers vs. enemy aircraft and anything they set out to kill will fall from the sky.  But once you clear the skies of opponents, they are pretty useless.  They can barely hit a single tank between the four of them and can't even kill infantry.  They are highly specialized and well suited for what they were intended.
That is good to hear, that is exactly the effect I was looking for.
Quote:
Games played in similar ways, with large infantry formations running for cover and soaking up fire while smaller formations maneuvered about and did the real damage.  The large infantry formations frequently could not fire at all because a few blast markers from teleporting plus being shot at supressed the mortars, support weapons, and veterans (the only units in range).  This meant the formations did a lot of marshalling or risked everything in an assault.
I tended to play my big drop companies rather aggressively which either won big or didn't. It is an interesting observation.
Quote:
Commissars IMO should be changed to match the 1 per 500 point limit that the other IG lists are taking on or any fixed ratio.  The army is difficult to model already, and having a variable set of commissars is annoying.  With a fixed number you can plan your army models better.
I don't have a problem with that recommendation. We can put it in the next update.
Quote:
All in all, a fun army to play with and it feels very different from other armies.  It's like wearing a loin cloth to a lion hunt.  You can do it, but you wish you had more on.
And I know I owe you pictures, my camera is barfing on me. ÂÂ
Cheers,
