@Signal:

The reason I am taking the approach I am is because the Elysians do not have access to a lot of heavy weaponry. I do not intend to allow them to field "batteries" of artillery as that goes completely against their fluff. Also although the mortars are not exactly spot on, they aren't what the list is about. We'll continue to tweak them as we go, but as long as they are not introducing an imbalance, I'm Ok with them not being perfect.

As has been pointed out before, we have a bit of playtesting ahead of us before we set them in stone, so we'll continue to revisit them throughout the next period.

Regarding the Venators, they haven't been tested much at all. Although they might seem like a real bargain, do keep in mind that once people start to shoot at them, they'll fade pretty fast. So, I'm not blowing off your comments, just letting you know that they are noted and I'll keep an eye out on them (as will others).

Thank you for providing feedback.

Cheers,

_________________
Remember Taros? We do.

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Edits done.

The 3.1.4 pdf should be up in a couple of days, then we can go through the usual "I could have sworn I fixed that" edits to get us to a ready for testing v3.1.5. I'm hoping that we're close enough that that phase only takes a couple of days turnaround.

Looking ahead, I am planning on the following:

1. Prior commitments until mid-July, so for myself, probably only a couple of games in for testing.

2. Post mid-July to mid-September, I should be freed up for more testing. I will gather observations from all playtesters (remember to post your battle reports) and we'll see where we are.

3. Post mid-September course adjustments, another phase of testing will ensue.

4. I'll close out the gathering of comments/edits by early December, with the goal of having the finished version done before the end of the year.

That should get us done in plenty of time for the ERC annual review. After that, the list will go to a once a year review as per other finalized lists and I will strive to get it into a tournament here in the U.S., possibly Adepticon 2012. I'll have to see what last year's organizer wants to do.

So, something to play with soon and I appreciate everyone's patience in the past few months.

"From the skies!"

Cheers,

_________________
Remember Taros? We do.

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Good to hear it.


Agreed.


Agreed.


Disagreed, I don't see why you'd remove this at all.


Agreed.


Not sure I agree there. Especially the Venator.


Agreed.


Agreed.


Well, Valk/Vendettas are never, ever, ever worth taking on the core Companies at their current price level. They are more expensive than Storm Troopers with Valkyries, have the same number of units, but are considerably worse in game. Needs fixing as it's a serious balance issue.


Agreed.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

The Vendetta upgrade option for the Storm Troopers was removed in order to give some distinction to an air-cavalry core formation. On the other hand, without a points reduction in the air-cavalry upgrade cost, we're unlikely to ever see Vendettas at all.


Looking at both IA3 and IA8, the Elysians do seem to have slightly fewer heavy weapons than other guard units. They can take 4 Heavy Weapon squads instead of 5 in a platoon. The real fluff-restriction on weapons is not based on quantity, but on mass. This is why they do not have access to Lascannons or Autocannons. the slight fluff blurb on page 98 of IA8 talks about Elysian combat doctrine using their teams to suppress enemy infantry forces in preparation for assault by the rest of the company.
This seems to bear a lot more connection with a separate (but small) mortar unit. The inclusion of a Mortar attachment seems to be in full alignment with the fluff, at least as much as there existing separate Sentinel formations outside of an Infantry Company.


The real difficulty with the Venators is when you compare them to Drop Sentinels. Arguably both are designed for anti-tank, and yet the only advantage the sentinels have is teleport, which gives them a good position in their first turn on the board, in exchange for being speed 20 from then on. Venators have double the speed, scout and a massively longer range. True, the Sentinels have the MW attack, but they will essentially never get to use it more than once, and there's a decent probability of at least one of them being suppressed on the drop.

Ok, version 3.1.4 has been posted at the head of the thread. Have at it.

Comments:



I thought the above argument was somewhat logical and we should also take into account that STs do not get Vendettas as a dedicated transport, only the Valkyrie. So, consider it fine tuning to fit more closely to the fluff.



If you read the descriptions of how the vehicles were used (Dagger Force), it’s very clear to me that they were used as a screening force to protect the flank of Shield Force, indicative of scouting abilities. Also that the Venator is used to supplement the firepower of the lighter armed Tauros.

I would also mention that this ability was argued for in earlier discussions.



A couple of things here. Firstly, I’m not ignoring this question, only delaying it for later.

Secondly, enough units have been introduced in this go around that I am more interested at this point in ensuring that we have a balance among all the new pieces. At that point we can look at the costs.



I'm afraid I'm not following the logic of your argument. The Elysians get fewer and lighter "heavy" weapons.

The “platoon” structure seems to be organized to be somewhat self-sufficient and include what assets it needs to support a generally assault oriented force.

However, there is no mention of separate artillery formations, only the use of mortars to support an assault (IA3). So I have decided to keep these assets as organic attachments to the platoon and force the Elysian player to choose carefully as to what actions to take.



Well, this is just my perspective drawn from the books, but I don’t think you should be comparing the Venators to Sentinels. Yes, they have weapons that can be used in the anti-tank role, but the weapons are in no way equal to each other. There is a trade off between range and punch between the two.

Therefore the vehicles themselves perform two separate roles, which has been a key driver in the shaping of the list from the very beginning. That is, what role should each of those units be performing?

In the case of the Sentinel, it does not have Scout as the Elysians use them as fire support platforms to support the infantry, because of the aforementioned fewer heavy weapons. The Venator however, does perform scouting duties and is equipped in line with its role.

Cheers,

_________________
Remember Taros? We do.

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Might I suggest putting scout on the regular Tauros, but not on the Venator? This allows the formation as a whole to still provide screening, but requires the Venator to remain within 5cm of at least one regular Tauros. This would present a trade off between the screening ability of the scout Tauros, and the heavier punch of the Venator. I think this would help the Venators "supplement the firepower" of the scouts, while not just simply replacing them altogether.


Looking back on my comments, I definitely wasn't particularly clear what I was trying to say. Let me attempt to rephrase

Standard IG squads (Fluff, 40k, and Epic) tend towards squad-level heavy support, with optional Fire Support squads. The Epic bases get their Autocannons to account for this, with the optional Fire Support team to augment them. This is because they all serve (generally) the same purpose, and it makes sense for all assets to be organic to that entity. (and thus tied into the formation's activation) Normal (non-mechanized) IG doctrine uses the Infantry squad to provide a base of fire, which can be augmented by inorganic artillery support.

40k Elysian squads in IA8 are unable to take heavy weapons as squad-level assets. They are available instead attached to the platoon, much as standard IG get their dedicated Fire Support teams. Standard infantry squads are equipped instead with special weapons (apparently we're going with Plasma Guns as the weapon of choice) and given not a base-of-fire role, but instead an assault-oriented role. The real breakdown here is that they do not have inorganic artillery support. In 40k terms, taking the Heavy Weapons team equipped with Mortars does not come with the same restrictions as it does in Epic. Mortars are an indirect-fire weapon (I'm going to avoid the word "artillery," as it definitely seems to hint more at Basilisks) and as such, have an entirely different combat objective than the rest of the squad. The Heavy Weapons Squad description mentions their use to "suppress enemy infantry forces," presumably before assaults, something which is very well represented in Epic by them being a separate formation.


Standard squads (with Autocannons at the squad-level, or 1/two bases) would benefit from organic Mortar support teams (a Company Upgrade) because they can operate as a fire-support unit. Giving that formation a Sustain action would restrict you to Line of Sight firing, but would double the Mortar range as well as providing AP4+/AT5+ Autocannon fire. Additionally, the standard squad would be able to benefit from the ability to use Basilisks or Manticores to separately engage targets that are unreachable otherwise.

Elysian squads are short-ranged, and very mobility-dependent. Having the Heavy Weapons teams as a Company Upgrade does seem to follow Elysian doctrine. However, that doctrine is written for Fluff/40k, and doesn't address the difficulties created by the Epic rules system. In 40k terms, the Elysian Mortars are going to be largely remaining stationary in the backfield, firing indirectly at targets the infantry can't engage. Effectively, they are an indirect-fire asset (analogous to artillery) that is attached at the platoon level. Due to Epic's requirement that formations all conduct the same action, a "Company Upgrade" mortar team is fundamentally unable to perform its mission, which is to provide indirect-fire support for the infantry, in the absence of larger artillery pieces such as the Basilisk or Manticore.

Essentially, Elysians in IA8 have their supporting elements combined at a much lower echelon than is normally the case for Guard regiments, intentionally to show a greater amount of company and platoon-leader initiative. A single platoon is capable of performing multiple simultaneous actions. Epic does not allow that to occur, and thus ends up interpreting a flexibility-oriented organization as one that is merely schizophrenic.

tl;dr: 40k Elysian Platoons are self-sufficient because they don't have to activate, move, shoot, and assault as a single unit. Epic Elysians currently do, rendering in-formation mortars practically useless.



I fully understand and support the idea that they should be providing separate roles. I think in retrospect my real dissatisfaction with the Drop Sentinels is their independent formation. If they're infantry support, than they should be with the infantry. While Macroweapons are strong, I would pretty much always take an AT4+ weapon which can almost always advance into range (and often sustain), over a MW5+ which will frequently be required to double just to get a shot off at 6+. This is less of an issue when they're a dedicated infantry support unit, but then they should have the option to acquire Sky Talons with which to accompany an airmobile company. I think this would help distinguish the Drop Sentinels as dedicated infantry-support weapons, with the Tauros as Scouts.

I'm sorry but I hugely disagree.

This is a major and incredibly obvious imbalance at the very heart of the list, and is a much more serious issue than balancing a peripheral unit like the Tauros, or whatever.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Well
1. Elyisians have no whole Platoons of Mortars. They have Platoons enhanced with Mortar Squads. But that is only anissue because you keep to name IG Platoons IG Companies instead

2. The role of Artillery for the Elysians is fullfilled by Vultures, Valkyries and Aircrafts.

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

1. Conceded, in terms of the Kastorel-Novem campaign. The Taros Campaign mentions how "Each company includes a platoon of heavy weapons, which are then divided up to support the Infantry platoons in combat." [IA3, 274] The 23rd Elysian retains administrative control of these assets at the Company level (they're assigned as additions to the Company Command Squad) but it mentions how their deployment is in support of the individual platoons. 23rd Elysian Companies are "formed by four infantry platoons and a Heavy Weapons Platoon." [IA3, 277] The 181st Elysian seems to emphasize platoon-level control a lot more, and has the Heavy Weapons squads assigned underneath the Platoon Commander (this also brings it into alignment with the standard 40k IG codex). Even the 181st, however, has the option to form a company along the same lines: a Weapons Platoon can consist of a Platoon Command Squad, 2 Infantry squads (a security detail, as well as support personnel) and 4 Heavy Weapons Squads loaded with Mortars. In Epic terms, this Weapons Platoon would be a Commander unit, 4 Imperial Guard Infantry, and 4 Mortars.

2. I'm not sure I can completely agree with you. Aircraft does perform a similar role, and I'll concede that. Vultures and Valkyries, however, do not. They are an airmobile element, and unable to perform the same sort of harassing fire that artillery is capable of. If either skimmer is able to engage an enemy, that enemy is capable of engaging it. Indirect-fire is able to flush out an enemy hiding behind cover in a way that skimmers, even with the ability to "pop-up," are unable to. Mortars are used to engage where direct-fire assets are unable to, and high-mobility assets would greatly endanger themselves.

If you're convinced that Vultures and Valkyries fulfill the role of indirect-fire assets, may I ask why mortars are included at all? After reviewing the revised list, I'm still struck by the fact that the Mortar squads, as written, are in every way inferior to Fire Support squads. To the point that taking them is not just unoptimized, but objectively bad. They still cost 25 points each (as do the Snipers, and the Fire Support, and the Sentinels, and the Cyclops...) while providing no advantages. The sole advantage of the mortar, Indirect-Fire, is absolutely wasted in the context of an upgrade, because the Core Formations will either be moving to where they can engage/fire their plasma guns, (thus unable to fire indirect) or sustaining at a target which is within 15cm, to which the entire formation has line of sight (thus not needing to fire indirect).



I have to agree with Evil and Chaos. An airborne Drop Troop company now costs more than the Stormtroopers, despite having fewer advantages. The link between Elysian Infantry and Valkyries is a core component of their appeal.

@Signal:

Regarding taking Scout away from the Venator. I'll think about that proposal. As part of the push back, I'd like you and others to consider whether or not that could be "gamed" from someone trying to take advantage of the difference.

Re: Drop Sentinels vs. Venators, I may just be too dense to see your point (or it could be the end of a very busy week), but I am not following your line of reason. Each of the vehicles has a role, which you acknowledge. Each is capable of getting Sky Talon support (when the Sentinel is a support fm). The only difference between the two is that the Sentinel has been added as an organic asset to account for their attachment at the platoon level.

So it seems as if the list is supporting your statements. Help me out a little here.

Re: Mortars...interesting proposal, the Mortar company. I will think on that some more.

@E&C/Signal



Based on the strength of your statements, you both are basically claiming that the list is unplayable because of this suddenly revealed cost imbalance. That's how I am interpreting your comments.

Respectfully I have to disagree.

Is everything perfect at this point? Absolutely not and I have stated so. However, it is very important to the overall direction of the list that the DTCs in association with the additional support elements are balanced first. It is critical that those elements are balanced as this is primarily geared to be a "drop" infantry list vs. the 101st Airborne Regiment mounted in Hueys.

I. From a fluff perspective, in both IA books, it is very clear that the Elysians deploy with not enough Valkyrie transports to drop all of their forces. In each case so far, there have been two waves of drops to get everyone where they need to be. That seems to be an accepted fact associated with their operations.

So, the list has to work as a drop infantry list first.

II. Again falling back on fluff, the attached ST elements are smaller, more mobile elements that actually land their troops (Reference: See IA3 and the battle for the Hydro processing plant), whereas the drop companies still fly to the destination, but then drop to the target.

The advantage to the DTCs is that they unlock additional capabilities, not the least of which is additional units to give them some measure of resilience. So part of the cost of the DTC is the ability to have options.

Now, will the Valk/Vendie costs get worked out? Absolutely. Will they be addressed right now? No. They aren't critical to proving whether or not the other elements work with the DTCs.

In addition, I am a big proponent of not changing too many variables at one time. It's a standard methodology in software testing. It works in list development as well.

The fact that I am using this methodology shouldn't come as a surprise to you E&C, it's what was used to drive the Tau development. It works...it just takes a little longer. But, it also produces more consistent results.

And as always, my old rule still stands. Documented playtesting is the key determinant in what changes get made. Any imbalances will reveal themselves and be duplicatable...and corrected.

Cheers,

_________________
Remember Taros? We do.

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

I think what E&C is getting at is not the fact that the list is unplayable at this point, but the style of play will change with lowering the cost of company/platoon Valks.

This could have a fairly major impact on list generation and balance and therefore ought to be done sooner rather than later.

Re: Valks/Vendies

Ok, make me an offer I can't refuse.

_________________
Remember Taros? We do.

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Okay, here's a points level set that would be a good place to start from IMO:

Reg HQ Drop Troop Company - 300 pts
+4 Valkyries - 75 pts
+4 Vendettas - 125 pts

Drop Troop Company - 225 pts
+4 Valkyries - 75 pts
+4 Vendettas - 125 pts



That gives price costs of:


Drop Trooper Co. (8 inf) - 225pts

Drop Trooper Co. (8 inf) with 4 Valkyries - 300pts
Reg HQ Co. (8 inf) - 300pts

Drop Trooper Co. (8 inf) with 4 Vendettas - 350pts
Storm Trooper platoon (8 inf) with valkyries - 350pts

Reg HQ Co. (8 inf) with 4 Valkyries - 375pts

Reg HQ Co. (8 inf) with 4 Vendettas - 425pts



To give a comparison with the EpicUK Vannaheim list:

Basic Mech Co.
1 (better) Command unit
9 (better) trooper units
5 valkyries (2 may be vendettas)
400 pts

Reg HQ
1 (better) SC unit
9 (better) trooper units
5 valkyries (2 may be vendettas)
500 pts


===================

I think that pricing structure may still work out a tad too expensive after playtesting, but at least a Valkyrie bourne Drop Co. will be cheaper than a Valkyrie bourne Storm Trooper platoon...

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

So, let me ask the question: Given this proposal, build me a list that you would play in a game.

I'm not giving the nod, I want to see what you'd do with the ability.

_________________
Remember Taros? We do.

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Will do so for you this evening. :-)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter