Quote: (Evil and Chaos @ Dec. 28 2009, 01:13 )
Quote:
I would be interested in knowing how the cost of 500 points was decided on
IIRC that was settled on as a cautious starting point for testing.
As stated above, I have trouble with the costing. It way underperforms IMO.
Firstly, with inferior defensive AA (a single AA5+ if the opponent isn't stupid/unlucky), it's likely a CAP/Intercept will hit with full force. Most Intercepts should be capable of doing a wound. Not counting the chance of a critical here, but that means the Harbinger has an Initiative 4+ on the following round.
Secondly, the cost. At 500pts, and coming out of the WarEngine allotment, it's difficult to not have this thing be the most expensive formation and still have sufficient activations. As has been ruled in a different thread, this makes it your BTS if it's killed, and not your BTS if it isn't. That's a very bad thing.
Thirdly, the effect. While it's arguably* hardier than an equivalent cost in Marauder detachments, it carries not a significant increase in firepower. Essentially 3 Reaper Cannons (AP4/AT6) vs 2 LasCannons (AT4). The Bomb Racks are essentially the same. This is compounded by the fact the Marauder is half the cost (allowing twice the numbers, meaning an extra activation and twice the firepower) and actually has better defensive capabilities (each Marauder has 2xAA5+). Given that the Marauder is still iffy at 250, twice that for the Harbinger is IMO way out there.
Finally, with the other options being stuck in the War Engines Allotment (Decimators/Deathwheels), and the Titans and the Fighters (necessary AA IMO), there's no room as it currently stands.
* They have an equivalent save, 5+RA vs 4+, and the Marauders suffer degredation, but the Marauders can't be killed with one hit. 50% of the time the Harbinger is destroyed, it'll happen early due to a critical hit.
Morgan Vening
