Regimental traits HR (Preferred weapons House Rule)

[Ulrik_Ironfist]

As always tnx for you suport and knowledge sharing!

I agree with some of your suggestions and disagree with others

As Always, I'm glad to help.

As always tnx for you suport and knowledge sharing!

I agree with some of your suggestions and disagree with others

I think rolling for all reserves from turn 1 is better than just deep strike reserves. That way Elysians get to keep something like their combat drop rule. That way they don't lose their flavor or only real advantages. Giving them MTC, lets the infantry move faster, and ignores the Dangerous terrain test on a scatter from a valk/vendetta, because not scattering is 100% broken if multiple units are doing it. Think about it, you fly 2-3 valks/vendettas by your opponents big killy thing, and now you plop down non scatting squads kitted to kill the thing, you had no disadvantages while he had all of the disadvantages, locator beacons are one thing, because it requires synergy and planning to work. That's just my thoughts on that.

I was thinking about simulating a drop pass at the beginning as heck the battle, so only the infantry virtually embarked on the non-playing aircrafts would arrive, other playing aircrafts, infantry or vehicles would arrive as usual. That because i was thinking that havig flyers in the 1st turn could be unbalanced.

But the fact that Elysians doesnt have tanks maybe mitigate this advantage, balancing all.

Non scattering in-game drops are and advantage like you said and have a big killing ower but at the best they are T3 Sv4+ 1W infantry, they will be owned from most of others enemies, especially in cc.

MTC for ignoring dangerous test when deepstrike is ok but its necessary to make inf more fast in rough terrain? I would let only the Catachans to be masters of this particular behaviour. Just limit Elysians to ignore test when Deepstrike? Dunno.

Having played Elysians straight out of IA4, having flyers 1st turn is annoying at best, and as you say the complete lack of tanks offsets this to a degree. Flyers are generally more surviveable due to their jink save, but suffer the possible consequence of flying off the board the next turn if you don't plan your moves right, leaving you without your air support.

The Killing potential is a non scattering alpha or beta strike. Let's assume we use your rule, and valks come in turn 2, fly in 2 melta vet squad, and plop them right next to a monolith, or a land raider. 6 Melta shots at 6 inches on BS4, has the potential to ruin that thing. Without scatter, they go right where you want them, with absolutely no disadvantages. That's the sort of killing potential I'm talking about, it's ruinous.

Giving forward sentries infiltrate, and the Sgt a locator beacon really helps out anyone entering from reserves, deep strike or otherwise. Infiltrate lets you grab objectives early on, as well as giving you some area denial, which without tanks you sorely need.

Locator beacon works only for DS units.

I would leave infiltrate to Tanith and give the Elysians possible DS from 1st turn just to make them a little different, otherwise y would totally agree.

Adding Locator to Vets makes dropping squads from Valk/Vend as powerful as you said. You also said that this is not a brainless buff so you have to gain it with strategy. But if you infiltrate and roll 1st turn with a Valk/Vend Squadron you will still have powerful drops without scattering.

You're right, they do only work on DS units. Grav Chute Insertion from the back of a valk is a deep strike move. Sorry I wasn't clear on that, as that's what i meant to imply.

The thing with Infiltrate, and letting elysian vets take it, is to function similarly to modern day pathfinders. The guys that go in first to establish the drop zone with markers and beacons to make sure that troops don't get misdropped. It's only vets, and only if you take Forward Sentries. So It's limited enough, but still available if you want to play that way, because not everyone plays elysians that way. I did, because I wanted to make minimal use of flyers, as my table at home gets really crowded with more than 2 flyers per side.

As for the scatterless drops, yes, it's powerful as we both agree, however the difference is in order to get the no-scatter, you have to pay a tax for it, instead of just getting it.

I took most of this stuff right from Forgeworld, because they did a ton of leg work, and why try to reinvent the wheel?

You don't have to be embarked on a chimera when you start the game, why must you be embarked on a valk/vendetta? Maybe that one made a pre-game pass, and dropped your troops in the DZ. It's way too limiting for no reason.

Didnt tought about a pre-game pass. I was only thinking about forcing the player to keep the bond between aircrafts and troops.

That's understandable, you want the army to have a theme. It already does though, without restricting the palyer more than you already have. The problem is that part of making rules, is making them so that players have to stay within them, but can utilize them in creative ways to have fun. One reason Guard is so much fun to play, is that there are literally thousands of different ways to play them. Everyone plays them differently, and forcing players to do things a certain way restricts the fun of the game. One reason I hate the Decurion Style detachments, I don't want to use what I don't want to use.

Vehicle Squadrons must all be of the same type (Valkyries and Vendettas are two separate entries). Mix and Match makes little sense as Valkyries and Vendettas have different targets for shooting. Valkyries are best kitted to deal with hordes or large formations of infantry, while the Vendetta is for anti-vehicle/MC work. If you put the Vendetta in the Valk Squadron all of them are stuck firing at the same target, so either the Valkyrie's shooting is wasted or the Vendetta's is. Not only that, but the vehicles must stay within coherency, which is 4 inches for vehicles, that's incredibly limiting, it works for pure squadrons because it increases volume of fire, but a mixed squadron with split fire would be cumbersome. Not a good mechanic IMO.

Tactically speaking mixing Valk/Vends would be awful, i agree. This were made to do only a thing: letting a full platoon to enter simultaniously using a single squadron as transports but allowing to have some more high S low AP fire than the one provided by 3 Valks. And that only for making my dreams come true (i like this idea so much)

I understand that, but since you're manipulating reserves already, you could just allow the Emperor's Spear Aerial Company Formation from the CBG, and you get valkyrie/vendetta squadrons in any combination of 3, and they operate independently, and you can transport a min platoon in 3 valks in a squadron with 2 2 ship squadrons of vendettas for all the firepower you can handle (and as much flyer goodness as your wallet can handle). I run the ESAC with 2x singleship valks, and a singleship vendetta.

Additionally, in Elysian fluff, the Valkyrie has been able to carry 2 sentinels, in the cargo bay, so that means they essentially count as extremely bulky. Which means a vendetta could carry 1 sentinel. That opens up a lot of possibilities.

Glad to hear that! I like it!

It makes it easier, because in the Elysian list you can only transport vehicles with a Sky Talon Valkyrie.

[Phubar]

You explained very well your arguments!
 

The Killing potential is a non scattering alpha or beta strike. Let's assume we use your rule, and valks come in turn 2, fly in 2 melta vet squad, and plop them right next to a monolith, or a land raider. 6 Melta shots at 6 inches on BS4, has the potential to ruin that thing. Without scatter, they go right where you want them, with absolutely no disadvantages. That's the sort of killing potential I'm talking about, it's ruinous.

 
On this point we disagree in the very heart of the discussion (hope you would understand what i wrote and what i will write :D)
My personal experience is: i play 90% agains a friend of mine that have SM with 3-4 DropPods loaded with Ironclad, Dreddies and/or ranged vets. He puts a locator on the first pod for later ones.
He mainly does not scatter or he scatters a bit away or (worse) goes 1" close to my units: no armour or cover for my inf (Flamer/Heavy Flamer) and second turn he finish off my last men with the other no-scattering pods and charges the tanks with first deployed dreddies (not always happens but very often). I got terrible headaches and pain in the .. well you know.
I wanted an army that could strike with that precision.

Dont feel bad (cant find other words) but i want to try to keep both solutions before making the choice. Altough Elysians are paratroopers i think that with 125+ or 170+ pts per transport you cant field  too much vets or CCS inside aircrafts (even modelling speaking its difficoult to achieve) and as you said handling lot of flyers on the board is difficoult. You would rather deploy inf via DS simulating the aricrafts transporting them. (those DS would scatter as normal).

 

I understand that, but since you're manipulating reserves already, you could just allow the Emperor's Spear Aerial Company Formation from the CBG...

Yes, now CBG gave us this formation and i thought about it but i wanted to leave the regiments not formation-dependant. You could never know if they (formations) will stay for ever. :)
But yes, now thats the way to do the job.

[steellegionnaire85]

What I meant is this. If you take the character rules and rename the characters with another regiment in mind. For example creed is cadian in origin. But if you took his rule set and a model that was say Armageddon steel legion, and called him Kirov. That would work. And do so for each character and each regiment.

[Ulrik_Ironfist]

What I meant is this. If you take the character rules and rename the characters with another regiment in mind. For example creed is cadian in origin. But if you took his rule set and a model that was say Armageddon steel legion, and called him Kirov. That would work. And do so for each character and each regiment.

The problem is that the special characters are supposed to be unique, otherwise they'd be generic characters. Cadia has no one like Yarrick, and Armageddon has no one like Creed, and only Catachan has anyone like Straken or Harker. Therein lies the problem. That's why I proposed that we tie those Characters to their respective regimental traits.

[Phubar]

Unique characters are poorly managed in the current codex, they are few and from only 3 Regiments.

I agree that unique special rules will remain bonded to the char and the regiment.

I hope next dex will fix the things a bit.