I understand why there is a 0-2 limit for the mortars as the rules stand; it prevents them from going above 2BP and hunting armored vehicles with some degree of efficacy.  However, with these stats up for debate, it may be a good idea to drop the limit on mortars if we are going with these stats...


Now while this might be a direction you are considering, Honda, I believe nobody will ever take the mortars with these stats at these prices even if you remove the 0-2 limit.  They cost the same as Support Squads and have 15cm less range and can't strike AT targets.  The only reason I would ever buy one is if I had 25 points left to spare and no other models to field.

Another problem is that applying a 'no line of sight required' rule to the mortars means that they could conceivably double and fire with no line of sight.  That seems odd to me.

What about the mortars reading...


The list would then read...


With the 3 support max, the result is you could min-max a single formation to have 8 Elysian drop troops plus 6 mortar units equalling 6BP.  These would be be hitting AP3+ on an indirect fire order, however they would have no AT whatsoever.  It would cost you 350 points for the formation and have a maximum range of 40cm.  Compare that against a formation of Whirlwinds at 300 points and I think the Elysians are still going to have it tough.  From experience, this hypothetical formation would rarely be able to fire all six mortars because of the suppression rules.  In other words, I don't see it getting overpowered.

What do y'all think?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

If we look back in IA3 to see how they were used, they basically caused the units to be assaulted to go to ground (i.e. by my definition, roughly 1 BM) in preparation of an assault.

So, these aren't going to be a battery, that isn't how they are currently organized. So I understand your reasoning, but you are using logic and negating fluff. My intention is to model the fluff. If we start looking for realism in our games, all our heads are going to explode.

The other reason I'm not to jazzed about the counter-proposal, is that to indirect fire, the formation has to remain static, correct? That to, does not match up with the description of use. The Elysian unit fired, then assaulted. I think we have a reasonable model (No LOF required) for simulating that effect.

Now, something that just popped into my head might be adding a FF attack to the formation when Mortars are present. So a Mortar unit gets you a...I don't know, 1 x FF+4 attack. I'd have to think about that, but that might be a way to look at it.

Thoughts?

Also, and I know this isn't always a popular decision, but I'm not trying to make all of the options attractive. Some units are there because they play a minor role, but they are present. That may put some units out of tune with other list approaches, but it remains true to the source. At least until we get more information from FW in IA8.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

The proposed rules are good.
But you should consider that Heavy Weapon Squads are very rare in Elysian Companies.
Page 264 on IA3 showsd the TO&E of a Elysian Infantry Company.
It consists of:
1 5-men Company Command Section
4 Drop Infantry Platoons (each 1 5-men Commmand Section and 4 10-men Drop Infantry Squads)
1 Heavy Weapon Platoon (with 1 5-men Command Section and 4 6-men Heavy Weapon Squats.)
1 Attack Squadron (with 3 Vultures)

Each Squat has a Valkyrie as dedicated transport.

The Wh40k army list doesn't even allow separate Heavy Weapon Squads as an army entry of its own. They are all purchased together with the Company Command Squat and then only in limited number (they are all 0-1 choices, only the Fire Support Squad is a 0-2 choice). See page 274 of IA3.

So at most an Elysian Drop Company (which really are only Platoons but as every time i expect to talk to deaf ears when i propose a renaming    ) would have Mortar Squads as a 0-1 upgrade for a single unit.

Most if not all of the ranged shooting in an Elysiam army would come from Sentinels and Vulture/Valkyries.

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

BL: I am in agreement with you. The Elysians just don't have a lot of access to heavy weapons and we should not be looking to expand upon that just to make them (Elysians) more effective.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Okay, I am fine with that if it matches the fluff.  The 1 BP should be left as it is then, however, even if you make it an "AP only" weapon.  The single shot is just not enough for 25 points.

With this in mind, do you plan on making the Support Sentinels fire in a similar fashion?  In other words, with the 'no line of fire needed'?  These units are in the same boat IMO.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Played with the Elysians again.  2nd loss with them.  

I guess my question still stands on the Mortars... What are we going to do with them?  Are we going to replace the indirect fire rule and have this note?


This solves the problem of them currently not being able to fire indirectly (which they should) but would allow them to fire without line-of-sight after moving on a double.  I don't know what to think of this.

Or should we change the range to 20cm, indirect, and minimum range does not apply notation?

Support Sentinels too...  There is this bizarre ring of unusefulness caused by the indirect rule.  Even a line note indicating the minimum range doesn't apply might help.

---



I just noticed this today and I am struggling to understand why on earth this would be modified.  Modeling this army is difficult to begin with.  When you start cutting into the number of support formations this deeply it will make it darn near impossible.  I don't know about the rest of you but I don't have enough infantry to make this kind of adjustment.  It would effectively kill my army, not to mention making it obscenely boring.

I also don't see it being necessary.  The Elysians already struggle to win and this would be an unnecessary nerf.

Lastly, it is counter to how the IG operate with -IMO- an already strict 2 to 1 ratio of support to core.

While a popcorn army might be theoretically possible, I'd like to see somebody actually abuse it and show it in a batrep before a change like this is made.  Isn't that the mantra?  Batrep first, then consider a change?  If its good enough for the Tau, it's good enough for the Elysians.

Neal put it best with this...


Elysians have neither speed nor range.  And unlike Necrons, once they teleport on they are stuck.
---
Played with the Bombers again.  The Marauder Destroyers felt good to use once more.  Not an insane piece of equipment and it certainly didn't instill fear, but it was a solid formation that performed well.
---
Lightning Interceptors actually got to intercept something this past game.  They were insanely good at wiping a pair of Tau strike craft out of the sky.  Of course they really couldn't do much more after that but I guess thats the trade off.
---
The suggestion came up that Sentinel formations be allowed to be up to six per formation (so 4-6 for whatever points).  I know it would look cool but I don't know what it would do to the list.  Of course if popcorn armies are the worry, this might help mitigate them.

Would like to get some feedback and -hopefully- a 2.1.6 by January 29th (Epic Day in Maryland).    

On a final question, has anyone heard anything on IA8?  I scoured for more information but couldn't find much on the new units that I haven't already seen.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Absorbing for comment later...just off the top of my head, I believe that the support formations got dropped to one because of the ability to popcorn, in particular, the MM Sentinels.

But I will have to confirm that, so not saying it's right or wrong at this time, but that is what comes to mind.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

NEW STUFF for Elysians



First try for a profile :

ELYSIAN TAUROS VENATOR
Light Vehicle
Speed 30cm
Save 5+
FF5+ CC6+
Twin linked Multilasers : 30cm AP4+/AT5+
OR Twin linled Lascannons : 45cm AT4+
Scout

I intentionnaly didn't integrate the 2 one-shot missiles.

_________________
My gaming and painting blog : http://figsdeflogus.blogspot.fr

Coolest.FW.Vehicle.Ever!

Wow!

Comments on the vehicle stats?

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Very cool. But it kinda butts in on the role played by the iconic Sentinels... Ok, it does not have walker, but it moves faster, has a better save and better weapons. Sure it would cost more, I guess, but it would be a much better scout thanthe supposed light all-terrain scout vehicle of the IG.

_________________
"Don't use finesse, if force will solve the problem."

- Lieutenant General Michael O'Neal

The vehicle stats look identical to the ones I sent you via email with the exception of the Hunter-Killer missiles.  IMO those would be really important to include, even if they were one-shots.  The other thing is I would lock in the vehicle to the lascannons to reduce their role.  Oh, and they need to be droppable.  Something like:



I suppose the first reaction is to make them a formation of 4 and able to be transported in Valkyries, just like the Sentinels.  First gut instinct is to charge 200 points for 4.  But I agree that even with the higher cost it might cut in on the roll of the chicken legs.

I was thinking about how to keep these from overwhelming the army without making them excessively expensive or the dubious 0-1 method.  One would be to disallow transport in standard Valkyries which limits their deployment compared to Sentinels.  Another would be to allow them as upgrades or swap-outs to the Sentinel formations only, like Typhoons to Land Speeders.  A third idea is to limit the formation to 3 units making them highly susceptible to breaking.

I think a lot of what we could do with them will depend on the heavy Valkyrie that is coming out along with the Vendetta.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Now that you bring this up, I believe there was a theory list put out by somebody (TRC?) that looked something like this:
Reg HQ 275
Drop Troops + Support 250
Drop Troops 200
Drop Troops 200
Drop Troops 200
Drop Troops 200
Drop Sentinels 125
Drop Sentinels 125
Drop Sentinels 125
Drop Sentinels 125
Drop Sentinels 125
Drop Sentinels 125
Support Sentinels 125
Support Sentinels 125
Support Sentinels 125
Support Sentinels 125
Support Sentinels 125
Lightning Interceptors 300
Total 3000 points
18 Activations

This no doubt raised some eyebrows.  But popcorn armies are questionable at best in terms of their effectiveness.  This one in particular since the best armored units are the interceptors and Sentinels (both at a 6+).  Everything else has no armor.

Heck, Chroma did some popcorn army playtests with the Necrons and even with 4+ living metal Monoliths bouncing all over the place the results were average.

In addition, the Orks, the Steel Legion, and the Space Marines are all able to make popcorn armies in the 14-17 activation range.  IG Steel Legion can conceivably go with this:
500 Reg HQ
250 IG Inf Co
250 IG Inf Co
250 IG Inf Co
250 IG Inf Co
100 Sentinels
100 Sentinels
100 Sentinels
100 Sentinels
100 Sentinels
150 Rough Riders
150 Rough Riders
150 Rough Riders
150 Thunderbolts
150 Thunderbolts
200 Shadowsword
2950 total, 16 activations

This is a popcorn army that has better firepower and almost as many activations.  While they can't teleport, they can garrison and this list has a mechanized formation and two air formations and TK abilities.  Oh, and scouts up the wazzoo.  Soes it mean the IG list needs to be revisited?  Probably not.  Sometimes these popcorns are effective and sometimes they aren't.  But if the core armies can do it I don't see why the Elysians can't.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I think your stats are spot on.
I bet it will have an all around Armour Value of 10 and being an OpenTopped, Fast Vehicle in Wh40k.

No idea if Scout would fit. And of the Hunter-Killer Missiles it depents if they are an option or mandatory. Surely they don't have an AA-stat.

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

Droppable, ok. But not in combat situation.
Scout is enough IMO. And that would preserve a specificity of the Drop Sentinels.

And it's too big/heavy to enter in a Valkyrie.

_________________
My gaming and painting blog : http://figsdeflogus.blogspot.fr

Good point.  Of course this may be the reason why the heavy valkyries are being brought into the game.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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