Regarding comments on the mortars, sooner is better.

What did you think I was doing?

My intention was to provide limited artillery capability without allowing for an artillery park. If it was a support formation it would have to contend with other choices, however there would be the possibility of spamming it.

Well you've made two of the three core companies 0-1 choices. It reminds me too much of the steps that were taken in creating the old (Official) Chaos Marines army list (Which was just a mess).

I'll be switching from playtesting the Cadians over to Elysians soon (Just as soon as I've put together enough troops), and will look to demonstrate the flaws I reckon I can see in the Iron Discipline rule.

It's probably worth noting that instead of your Iron Discipline rule, the Cadian list is using a similar rule named "Elite", which is just a flat +1 bonus to rallying. This I view as a better rule because it doesn't effectively remove a layer of tactical choice from the game (Putting your broken units near the enemy to hinder their rallying at the cost of a worse chance to rally your own units). I view your ID rule's sanding down of the game's tactical complexity as a more important issue than its possible effect on game balance.

I don't actually see anything wrong with that possibility. It's not like people are actually going to take more than 2-3 formations of them. It's like artillery being available as support formations in the Marine and Steel Legion lists... few people actually go the whole hog and make artillery regiment armies (And if they do, then what's so bad about that?).

I'm in no way going to suggest how you should play test, but it seems to me that you just said, "I don't like this rule and I'm going to prove to you that it's bad". This infers that you are predisposed to finding fault vs. "I'm going to play some games and see what effect the rule had on the results of the game."

Nope, I'm going to go all out and try and make the game unfair to my opponent by using this rule.
If I can't do that, then the rule will be ok. If I can, then the rule is unfair (and worse, tactics-free).

To use your favourite software analogy, I'm going to beta test the hell out of this feature.

Doesn't feel right that you can use your broken guardsmen to aggressively go after enemy broken formations because they don't have the penalty themselves. I know that's not the intention of the rule as you wrote it, but that's what players will do.
Doesn't feel right that you can use your broken guardsmen to aggressively go after enemy broken formations because they don't have the penalty themselves. I know that's not the intention of the rule as you wrote it, but that's what players will do.

perhaps reword it so that the elysian player can choose to roll without the penalty, but if they do so, do not inflict the penalty upon enemy units either (it stands to reason that broken forces who are keeping their heads down will not also be harrassing the enemy formation aswell)


[edit] or remove the choice part entirely. state that elysians are particularly good at going to ground. as such, broken elysian formations never suffer the penalty to rally for having enemies nearby, but equally, while broken, do not impose the penalty on enemy formations within range either[edit]

(i have to say though, that this "fade away" rule seems more suited to a Tanith style scout force than an elysian one)

I played the following:

Reg HQ + Vendettas
Drop Company + Fire Support + Drop Sentinels + Cyclops
Mortar Company + Hardened Vet
Vultures
Storm Troopers + Valk Transport
Drop Sentinels
Drop Sentinels + Sky Talon Support
Drop Sentinels + Sky Talon Support
Tauros
Marauder Destroyer
Lightning Interceptors

11 activations

Notes:
No complaints from anyone on any of the changes or army in general. Cyclops spurred a couple questions on how they worked, but nobody had any issues. I am wondering if a "disposable" description is apropo since they are really like suicidal grots. It also would clear up questions I had as to whether or not hits could be allocated to them in an assault, knowing that they were going to disappear anyway. We played that hits COULD be allocated, but given the limited use of them in the games nobody batted an eyelash.

I know the Iron Discipline has been under scrutiny in the distant past but nobody seemed to care. It really is one of two "special" things about the entire list (the other is teleporting). ID saved my arse on many occasions and kept it from being a blood bath. For my opponents it didn't do anything to screw them up. When my formations were broken, they still needed a 4+ to rally.

Teleporting was no issue at all. Teleporting terminators makes people squeamish. Teleporting a bunch of 6+ armor and no armor guys makes people yell out "lunch!" For me, this was a low teleporting activation for me (only two formations, BTS and Sentinels).

Garrisoning was done in all three games with the Mortar company and once with the Storm Troopers. It gave me a bit of help that the mortars IMO needed, as they performed just okay for the first two games.

Mortars: The range was nice to have. For the price they were almost worth it I suppose but I don't think I would bring more than two formations of them. IMO one is enough. They don't fit well for upgrades and the Hardened Vet went unused completely. Because of this and their poor armor they are limited by terrain in their safe locations and prone to breaking easily. If only they had some option to upgrade with something like another indirect fire weapon. Nothing too powerful, just something to give them a little more bulk. Hey! How about a Sentinel that shoots indirectly? There is a novel idea! I seem to recall that being available at one point or another. The other players thought it was a good idea too.

Tauros: Okay, I found these guys to be a bit more useful than normal in two of the games. The scout function was great for screening and I got to use the ignore cover function once. Really they are a throw-away formation which is fine. I still wouldn't pick them under normal circumstances over the Venator.

Sky Talons: As before, they did fine. Good transports for the Sentinels given the price.

Lightning Interceptors: I am having doubts about this formation, but not based on its stats. This problem goes back aways, but I am starting to see it more and more. The problem is this: at 300 points per formation, you really can only afford to bring 1 of them. If your opponent has 2 formations of fighters (which I experienced in two out of three games at the tourney and also recently before that) you are in a pickle. CAP'ing a CAP is a pretty common house rule, so the interceptors are useless as a CAP in that case. If I go and unCAP one formation, and they unCAP on my CAP, I die horribly. But if I just intercept, I get wiped out by the second formation anyway. Either way I am screwed. The only option is to bring the Lightning Strikes to supplement as a 2nd hand interceptor. That by itself is not a problem, but the fact that it is my ONLY choice for aircraft selections kinda blows.

I like the idea of the interceptors and I like the idea of the 4 strong formation, but maybe we should be switching it up the other way around. Have the interceptors be a formation of 2 and the strike fighters a formation of 4. This seems more realistic anyway as interceptors are often launched in pairs, whereas ground attacks are usually made with larger formations of fighters. Points may have to be adjusted if we do. For me the problem wasn't as manifest because I was playing many games against Necrons and Squats, neither of which have aircraft. Now that I am playing more lists, it is more apparent as a problem.

Marauder Destroyers: I noticed the AA was increased to 15cm all around and then the additional shot for the rear arc. That may have just been an errata but it was much needed. With that change I was happy. Still I'd like to see the double formation come back, although I can't articulate why right now.

Vendetta: It packs a punch. I still like it. The sheer firepower it lays out is great. The problem is getting it into position to use it. That isn't a bad thing, just saying that it takes some skill (i.e. it isn't a Leman Russ formation firing 75cm). I didn't mind having them as restricted to the core formations.

That's about it for now. Hope that helps.

...But no editing the part about the Support Sentinels.

You have to understand - I have people coming by, GROPING my army saying,

Player: "Those look awesome! Are those the rocket shooting Sentinels?"
Me: "Yup, those are Support Sentinels."
Player: "I remember those! Cool. What are their stats?"
Me: "Uhh, well right now they don't have any."
Player: "Why did you make so many of them then?"
Me: "Because they used to have stats."
Player: "Were they overpowered or something?"
Me: "No..."
Player: "So what happened?"
Me: "Well, Forgeworld wasn't selling enough so they took them out of the newest book, and then the list developer matched the new list to the book and deleted them from the Epic list."
Player: "That's really (or a word that means "really" but starts with an "f") stupid. Just ignore the list and make your own."
or the alternate ending...
Player: "He sounds like a douche."
Me: "Well, Honda can't be a douche. He's from Texas."