Epic Armageddon, yes. Epic generally, no. Vets had independent statlines or other representation in several early editions.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Isn't one of the complains against Epic 2nd the severe bloat of special rules?

Sorry – it seems I've ninja-edited you, Ulrik.

Veterans were differentiated from Tactical units both in number of stands, CAF and morale in editions previous to Epic: 40,000. I appreciate that streamlining and abstraction is an important part of army list design – and nowhere more so than Epic: Armageddon, but so is development and discussion rather than stagnation and conservatism*.

I'd appreciate any thoughts you have on my updated post – particularly the point about using the proposed Veteran formation to address some common complaints about the NetEA Codex: Astartes list I've seen on this forum; and apologies if my earlier post came across a bit snarky before


*Which isn't to say that I think change for change's sake is good, I hasten to add!

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

Note that this is just my opinion! I'm not the army champ or anything close.

I don't think using a veteran formation to patch the holes is the right way to go - a ground list should at least attempt to be built around tacticals. Also, if the change to allow tacticals to use Land Raiders goes through, that's enough for me to show the presence of veterans.

Okay, that's fair enough – thanks for the feedback.

I'm aiming to playtest Dobbsy's suggested changes (here) next Thursday, and will try out my Veteran idea the following week.

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

ETC? I usually play against Bob_Hunk – but I'd be happy to get some pictures done. I've got quite a bit more of my army painted and based, so they should look nicer, too

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

Veterans: just model them on the character stand in your tactical formation. Thats's where your honour guard, wolf guard, etc look the best. Don't need another unit!

I think at the most, "Veterans" should be a character upgrade, specifically one for Tacticals, that gives access to some sort of MW capability. (or some other perceived hole)

Gotta agree with Rug and fattdex; veterans have no place in the epic rules. Model them on character bases.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

It was mentioned near the beginning of the thread but not recently, Dreadnaughts.

They just feel too expensive, both in codex marines and in chaos they seem rarely taken, why take 3 dreadnaughts when you can take a scout formation instead. Im not sure how much of this is down to 'formations > upgrades' and how much is down to dreadnaught overcosting but I feel that they could do with a look at, especially a multibuy option to allow a ground unit to take 3 but not allowing the pricebreak on a thunderhawkable size formation. eg 50 for 1, 100 for 3. 25 each was also suggested previously but that might be too far for most people.

Thoughts?

Hey Dobbsy

Where do you stand with results and a general feeling on how the list changes are going? Will they become permenant changes in the near future. I have played six games with the changes and focussed on taking pure ground forces. I have come up against Guard and variant Marine lists and have been more competative than with the original vanilla Marines in the past. I have been able to get equal numbers of activations on the table and even to out activate. The changes do not make the list overpowered and I have had no complaints from my oponents.

Cheers
Aaron

They'll only be made permanent if the general feeling is they're ok and the ERC agrees to them. As a couple of the ERC have already mentioned several times to me - "they don't see the need, themselves" - maybe take it as you will... <shrug>

I've had a few games with the changes now and so far I've had the same feedback as your opponents.