Honda_reloaded wrote:
@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.
I can understand your reticence to potentially opening up opportunities to exploit the rules, but I think any benefit which could be gained would be balanced out by the drawbacks. Having a 2/2 split between Tauros and Venators, with the Scouts on the outside flanks, would provide a pretty solid ZoC from the scouts elements, potentially drawing engaging enemy infantry towards the ends, rather than the center. On the other hand, that formation would be restricted by 5cm coherency. I don't really see much to be afraid of, though perhaps someone else might see some opportunity.
Honda_reloaded wrote:
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.
I guess the crux of my argument is, I don't think the Drop Sentinels should be available as an independent formation. This would emphasize their "infantry support" status, make the Tauros the undisputed "scout" formation, and limit the ability to "popcorn" teleporting MW formations.
Honda_reloaded wrote:
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.[/quote]
Not saying the list is unplayable, just that certain army design opportunities are unnecessary limited.
Honda_reloaded wrote:
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.
The reason why the Elysians tend to deploy in two waves in the fluff has less to do with a deliberate regimental organization decision, and more to do with the sheer size of the deployments in question. Both IA books detailing the Elysians depict an entire regimental assault. Although only half of the 23rd Regiment was able to deploy at once, that half was delivered with
160 Valkyries. I highly doubt anyone's epic game will be that big, but maybe we should limit Drop Companies to allow only 40 of them to take Valkyries?
I think that it's unnecessary to build that kind of restriction into the list, especially since it's entirely possible for an Elysian Brigade (which is their apparent designation for a group of Companies which make up a Regiment. Whatever happened to Battalions?) to deploy entirely via Valkyries which remain on station.
In actually play, I think there are two factors that will contribute to your looked-for scarcity of Valkyries, without removing them altogether. First, people need physical models to represent the Valks, and there tends to be a finite limit of the expensive things. Sure, this isn't game-imposed, but it does represent the sort of scarcity the Elysians tend to deal with. Second, it's still extra points to bring the carriers, and they aren't always desired. If planning on dropping a formation into cover as a dedicated objective holder, for instance, Valkyries aren't particularly necessary.
Honda_reloaded wrote:
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.
Very true, but the fluff descriptions of Valkyries are sometimes very odd compared to their depiction in Epic gameplay. At times the writers seem to think of them less as organic transports, but more as attack helicopters which happen to be able to carry infantry on their way in, before returning to refuel/rearm. They also seem to spend a fair amount of time ferrying ammunition and supplies for the troops themselves.
Honda_reloaded wrote:
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.
It is true that they have options, but an unfortunate side effect of the Epic ruleset is that upgrades are often less desirable than additional formations, simply due to the benefits of having an activation advantage. Placing the "option surcharge" on the formation, instead of the options themselves, seems somewhat counterproductive.
Honda_reloaded wrote:
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,
I respect your desire to try and iron out some of the kinks with the new, relatively untested units before fine-tuning some of the older elements. My issue with leaving the air-cav elements unchanged for now is that it will fundamentally affect the balance amongst other elements in the list.
Currently, Support Companies are essentially the best options in the list. Since Storm Troopers are an equivalent but inherently better option than the Core choice, players will tend to take a minimum of Core choices and maxing the support companies. In this context, Tauros/Storm Troopers/Vultures are competing directly against each other as the only (reasonable) ways to get any sort of mobility in the list. In this competitive environment, the Tauros might be a great deal simply because it's 150 points for four speed-35cm units.
Once air-mobile Drop Companies are a feasible choice, the Tauros squadron might be "worth" less, simple because there is a core option which can fulfill the need for a mobile formation. They'll still be useful, but their relative value will drop somewhat.
A couple more comments on the list, looking at it some more:
First; I thought the decision was to have three mortar squads for 50 points, not the option for 0-3, at 25 points each?
Second; was there a need to increase the cost of the Drop Company? I thought the addition of the plasma guns was to make them worth their current cost, not to increase it further?
Third; I think there was a minor overflow with the Support Companies entry, which makes an extra three mostly-blank pages show up
Fourth; And something which I really don't have an answer for, is a problem with having numerous Valkyries available in an army. Rocket Pods, as they are currently listed, are a real hassle to track. Due to the undoubted effectiveness of multiple-template Disrupt barrages, and their one-shot nature, it can become frustrating to monitor which units in formation have expended their munitions. Is there any support for a Valkyrie variant, to be used as the Core Skimmer upgrade, which replaces the Rocket Pods? Using the "Underwing Rockets" from the Thunderbolt or Lightning Strike would be a possible option, giving an AT4+ FxF shot to each Valkyrie, while removing the bookkeeping. At the very least, I think it'd be beneficial to remove the Rocket Pods from the Sky Talons. They're currently being valued at the same points cost as the regular Valkyries, despite being inferior, and I'm certain a large part of that is due to the raw effectiveness of Rocket Pod strikes.
