frogbear wrote:
So this really springs from all the investment that takes place with other lists.
Yes, it does.
Quote:
Examples:
- There is currently discussions on various types of Land Raiders. Why? Redeemer vs Crusader - what is the point?
These actually have different battlefield roles. Close support versus mass transport. A few variants for reasonably distinct roles is okay.
However, when you start asking things like "why Achilles and Redeemer" when they are both close support... I agree. I don't think the plethora of variants are needed.
Quote:
- Dreadnoughts - Siege vs Ironclad - what is the point?
None. In fact, most of the dread options are overkill. They need 2 options - firepower and assault. Past that it should be a very iconic item before it is included. Something like the Furiosos might be justified, for instance.
Same for Preds. The variants aren't really needed.
Quote:
- There are other micro detail discussions going on for Tau and probably the Imp Guard.
The Tau discussions, last time I checked, were about differentiating battlefield roles for the different infantry. That's specifically with the goal of affecting game play.
I'm unaware of any IG discussions. However, I did argue that the Minervan list and Krieg each needed far less variety of AVs, even though they were a major feature. The Chimera variants on the Minervans were a touchy point and the NetERC really pushed back on them when it came down to making the list official. The NetEA "official" Krieg list uses the stock Shadowsword stats, even though E&C included variant stats in Siege.
Quote:
There just appears to be one rule for Marines and Imp Guard, and another rule for Orks. I just do not understand it.
Nah. See above.