hello !
I like the idea to transfer the overlords into the support section .
If the were support i would defenitly use them.kind regards
stefan
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=134&t=25428 |
Page 7 of 8 |
| Author: | Shoel [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
I know Moscovian isn't in to this but I would love to see Overlords as upgrades to Iron eagles/hawks, goliath and thunderfire as upgrades for thudd/mole/tarantula/rapier formations. Freeing up WE space, increasing breakpoints (Squats shouldn't break easy) and reducing the number of activations (8 Iron birds +2 Overlords, would now be 2 formations instead of 3, which atleast in my mind as a fluffy thing). |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
Not for this list, but the idea of an Overlord with some Iron Eagles guarding it sounds terrifyingly fun. That would be one EXPENSIVE formation, and the firepower it would put out... Egads! Ten battlecannons plus autocannons; that would be like a flying Leman Russ formation, albeit with less armor and less units. |
|
| Author: | Tiny-Tim [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 3:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
But let us not forget that WE can be targeted separately in a mixed formation. That's why you don't see many Battlefortresses with Gunwagons in an Ork list. |
|
| Author: | Shoel [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 3:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
Yep like a Le man russ company Except with integral AA defense and one part of the unit that could never hide (and be picked out anyway). Immune to bad terrain, good line of sight, in some ways better at assaults some way worse (skimmers get to force FF, but LMR has 4+ FF, less attacks) Easier to break (7 vs 10), worse armor (RA on all LMR but only on 3 of 7 hits). Less shots (the LMR has 4 shots Iron Eagle only 3. slightly worse AT shots. I wouldn't have a problem with it costing 650 points, like the tank company (in the list now its 550 points, 2 activations but very easy to break) But with the pro's and cons counted up, I think perhaps 550-600 is a good cost. |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
Agreed. I might have to steal that as a formation for the Trade Consortium list. It sounds devilish! |
|
| Author: | nafets [ Wed Nov 27, 2013 3:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
hello ! I like the idea to transfer the overlords into the support section . If the were support i would defenitly use them.kind regards stefan |
|
| Author: | Tiny-Tim [ Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
Tried a game last night using two Berserker formations bulked out and transported in Hellbores. The remaining forces were a Warrior formation with Rhinos; two formations of Thunderfires; two formations of Gyros both with two Iron Eagles; Bikers (3 Trikes) inc Greand Warlord and four Overlords. Hellbores were planned to come up on turn three on the two TnH objectives in my opponent’s half. I faced off against a fairly standard Space Marine force containing two Warhounds, Thunderbolts, Thunderhawk with Bikes, Thunderhawk with Terminators, two Scouts with Rhinos, Land Speeders, Predators with Hunter & Devastators with Land Raiders & Hunter. We traded formations to start off with, but I lost the Warriors and one formation of Iron Hawks; two Overlords were reduced to 1 wound and the Bikers were broken with only three units left. Failing to rally the Overlords and Bikers confirmed the loss, but only taking out a Warhound and the Landspeeders were my downfall. Thoughts were that against a force with some MW shooting show up the vulnerability of Overlords and their AA is pants. Also the Thunderfire’s were rubbish as well and I’m seriously thinking of running the list without AA as it is too limited in its current form unless you are playing a defensive style. I’m coming to the opinion that a larger formation of Thunderfires might be a better starting point, but 200pts for three feels too much as I’d rather spend the points elsewhere at the moment. I doubt that I’d use the Hellbores again as they are too much of a points sink for a 3k game. |
|
| Author: | lord-bruno [ Sun Dec 08, 2013 3:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
Tiny-Tim wrote: I doubt that I’d use the Hellbores again as they are too much of a points sink for a 3k game. I can't see the point in using Hellbores over the cheaper Moles and Termites. |
|
| Author: | Engmir [ Thu Dec 19, 2013 12:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
lord-bruno wrote: Tiny-Tim wrote: I doubt that I’d use the Hellbores again as they are too much of a points sink for a 3k game. I can't see the point in using Hellbores over the cheaper Moles and Termites. Yeah, I'm not seeing their value either. What can they actually do to justify the points cost? |
|
| Author: | Tiny-Tim [ Thu Dec 19, 2013 12:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
I was thinking; bulk up the unit, WE block line of sight and have a good save. However my experience favours the use of a Rhino rush over any of the tunnellers at the moment. |
|
| Author: | Engmir [ Thu Dec 19, 2013 11:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
Yeah, but still 150 vs 0 points won't make it see much action. especially since it has move 0 so it's effect in assaults will likely be limited. It would be nice if we could come up with a something that could compete with rhinos |
|
| Author: | PAR [ Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
i have tried leviathans transporting infantry in my recent games & found them a liability (easily broken) maybe consider moving them from WE to a warrior upgrade. it would make a fluffy tough but expensive BTS also i have never taken a warlord upgrade i have always put my SC in the bikes i allways have a better use for 75 points maybe a free warlord upgrade on one heartguard unit (a bit like the orks) could work PAR |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
PAR, I am going to move the Leviathan to the transport option as you have suggested. Let me mull over the warlord suggestion though... |
|
| Author: | Oberst Lynild [ Sat Mar 15, 2014 1:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
Quote: Bombs are supposed to be 15cm. It's a mistake!  This has not been corrected in the list yet. Or do ppl just use the 1.5? |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Squats: Thurgrimm's Stronghold List, 1.4 |
I'm going to correct it. Bombs are 15cm. |
|
| Page 7 of 8 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|