I still don't see any compelling reason for making a large structural change to the list at what is, hopefully, a very late stage in the list process. TBH I think changes of the magnitude suggested shouldn't be implemented without testing - which is basically what is being suggested.
In 11 months one person has had a complaint about the new structure, in this or in other lists where it has been adopted, and even they had initially supported it. That the system works has been more than proved in year of play and in 5 months of EUK tournament use.

With the current structure you have to take 2-3 retinues
- IMO the backbone of a Black Legion army should be large numbers of CSM. They are the largest legion and noted for any fast attack or armour prevalence
- This doesn't really make a great change from previously as IIRC I've only ever seen 1 BL army that didn't have 2-3 retinues.

Using the retinues as the basis of the list you can still use a variety of themes to build the list
- mechanised - retinues in rhinos, scouts in rhinos or decimators, armour
- drop
- foot slogging

The only real change is that you cannot go all-armour, which IMO is not a significant issue.

The structure now makes you make the choice of which direction you are going to take rather than having the opportunity to max out on all the option -scouts, terminators, WEs. IMO this makes the list considerably less cookie cutter as now you have to choose rather than beoing able to do everything.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

I miss my armour/WE army (Ok I had Raptures to get the Warlord), but as times change so do lists.

Tiny-Tim! Were you always a blue-boy?

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Ever since Mekboy stepped down. Which is longer ago than I care to remember.

I agree, the narrower choices has generally led to there being a wider variety of armies in play that I've seen, as before most armies were very similar (Filling up on all the 0-x's plus Feral Titans took up a good 75% of your standard 3k list)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Well, is allowing the armour warband to be a core choice viable? Or against the stated feel/theme?

It would work fine... for an Iron Warriors army list. :-)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Reason for change: The list is no longer a generalist list, and that is a primary goal for a core army list.

Complaints and lack thereof: Of course there have been few complaints. The changes did almost nothing to change the tourney/power-gamer list composition. If no one is playing alternative styles (and it's obvious from the batreps and tourney lists that they aren't) then there won't be complaints.

Playtesting: This is a red herring. Loosening it would not be a major change, and there are literally years of games with looser restrictions to look to. As long as you don't flip it back so far it is even looser than the official list, playtesting on a large scale is not required. This is not starting over as has been implied.

Keeping a retinue core as a signature character of the list: A reasonable goal, but as you pointed out, nearly all lists prior to the changes had 2-3 retinues. That probably means it is not a problem to build that requirement in, but the flip side is that forcing people to take them is unnecessary to achieve this goal.

Forcing strategic choices: The primary strategic choice you are claiming this list revision creates is based on the selection of the 3 Elite formations out of ~10 formations in the army. The claim that 3 formations is sufficient to control the strategic character of the entire army is a very tall claim and it deserves elaboration and support.

Also, it is worth examining how the intended scout-termie-WE "forced choice" works. The reason it is a forced choice is because the Elite choices are seemingly always maxed out to make a viable army. That means as a group they are the "no brainer" choice.


I didn't really want to get into the details, but since you keep going there... mechanized infantry might be workable within certain restrictions, but there are no batreps to support it. If it really works, then the mech infantry is an expensive core formation because the only way it can reasonably expect to remain mobile is to use at least one LR, probably 2. That expense requires the player to max out Elite formations that can pad activations, exactly as you note - Chosen and Decimators.


The assertion that this is viable is unsupportable. There are no batreps of a successful drop force using the BL list. The only batreps I know of were frogbear's and they were all losses. It should be obvious from theoryhammer as to why - the maximum drop/deepstrike in the list is ~2000 points (only to be reached by maxing out elite formations). That requires split forces and maxing out the allies allotment on War Engines so they can survive to link up.

Also, if you're making a case about supporting different playstyles, that's pretty much the same as the stock power build. Obviously, deployment makes a difference in play but once it's on the ground it's the same list.


Again, not one batrep supports this being viable. The restrictions cut into key elements of an infantry line force. There are limited scouts and heavy hitters, so even in theoryhammer world it requires maxing out Elite formations.


The changes seriously impact other play styles as above.

Also, you neglected a fast attack style. The option you proposed above (Mech Retinue + Mech Chosen + 2 Bikes/Raptors) relies on maxing out every available support slot so there is no way to build in any other elements, e.g. the mobile fire support so critical to a fast attack force comes out of the same allotment as the fast attack so you can't have both. Even if it could work, it has as many foot infantry as fast attack units so it's as much mech infantry as fast attack.

==

If you have any examples of alternate play styles being employed successfully, by all means provide them.

Maybe there was some testing of alternative play styles in the EUK process, but from what I've seen of that process, the primary goal is making sure the lists are not overpowered in the UK tourney scene. Alternate play styles are not important, just balanced tourney fights. I would be willing to bet that the testing was all geared solely towards the power-build armies.

That's not to bash on EUK. That is their stated goal and they do a fine job of it. It does, however, limit the applicability of their tests and make me doubt that there is an untapped reservoir of information out there.

What variety are you seeing in them? Can you post examples, please?

I posted ~10 lists that closely follow the same pattern and which would require no more than minor changes for pre/post BL list versions. The variety is largely restricted to bikes-v-raptors, some small WE variety, and how to break up 2-3 formations of scouts/termies. That would seem to have little effect on overall play style.


When it comes to the final army composition they are still very similar. Maybe the formula has changed from "0-x's + Ferals" to "3 Retinue + 3 Elite + 1-3 Warhounds/Deathwheels" but the end result seems to be the same lists.

In my experiece, most lists prior to the change had 2 retinues, and now most lists have 3 retinues.

Whether this changes anything, I know not... but it does feel a bit more "Marineish" to me to see that extra Retinue.


My anecdotal experience is merely that I've been seeing more variety, most especially as regards the selection of War Engines (Before the structure changes, most "Black Legion" armies I faced were really Chaos Titan Legion armies with a few 0-x elite CSM formations in support).

Also the aircraft are now seen as worthwhile, so I'm seeing some of them instead of, as before, none, though that's not down to structure changes but stat and point changes.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Complaints - Simply not true. 2 foot retinues was optimal before, the only successful 3 retinue army took 2 large termies and then maxed out on scouts to preserve activation count. A variety of styles is as possible as in any other list. Just now you can't take 2 retinue, 2 scouts, 1-2 terminators, 3-5 WEs and then extras as default. Choices in style have to be made.

Playtesting - Any previous testing has a variety of different stats and I think we've all seen with the Eldar+SM how small changes can have a huge effect.

Frocing strategic choices - the structure 11 months of testing+discussion show that.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

All the tactics you dismiss are viable
Mech - pitfiend used 2 mech retinues, 2 decimators, armour (+termies, foot retinue, planes) to come 2nd at ITB. Mech retinues are increasingly popular. To me thats an mechanised force

Drop - I've never seen any force successfully drop 2000+pts so to try and make out that is a restriction is bizarre. I've seen successful 2 terminator, 2 drop pod retinues used - and that is still possible.

Foot slogging - My normal list has 2 foot retinues

If your problem is that you can't purely do these options (ie using termies in a mech list)then I don't see an issue. No list is successful if it just does one thing.

Show me batreps that an all-armour or all fast-attack list has ever been successful - or indeed used.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

You would lose that bet then. There was plenty of testing of different styles (and styles whichj we wouldn't generally use) by at least 3 different groups in the process-. EUKs primary goal is to produce, to schedule, balanced lists.

To me you could just as well dismiss any tests reported online as you don't know if the correct rules were used or a myriad of other issues.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

This is the list I will be submitting to netEA for the armybook. Its the product of over a year of hard work and testing and, in my opinion solves the vast majority of issues that were problematic before.

In my view it still allows a variety of styles of play without being overly restrictive and without non-scaling restictions. I'm not prepared to restructure the list on one persons complaint.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion