Tactical Command :: View topic - Let's Talk 5: Core Infantry Changes

175 is fine if attaching to infantry as it seriously limits their mobility due to lost rhinos. Agree 175 as an independent war engine is outrageous. I'd be taking 5 if that were the case.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

StevekCole wrote:

Ben if it gets through at 175 as a core attachment I promise you I will break the army so hard and so publicly they will become a dead race for real.

375 probably is overpriced when attached to infantry (especially when you factor in lost cost of rhinos). Agree (with benefit of hindsight) 175 would be far too cheap (at least Orkeasaurus aren't fearless and don't have doomsday cannons).

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So I think the EUK and current NetEA Leviathan are essentially the same except one has only 2 void shields and a fighting platform.

ffoley wrote:

So I think the EUK and current NetEA Leviathan are essentially the same except one has only 2 void shields and a fighting platform.

It's the changing core infantry that might have an effect on the price/worth of the Leviathan, not the Leviathan itself.

For example, a Thunderhawk is pretty useless if all it is transporting is Imperial Guard, as they are reasonably useless in an engagement. Similarly Space Marine Terminators are kinda weak if they have to footslog all the way across the table to get into CC. But if you marry up the Terminators and Thunderhawks together you get one of the most dangerous and effective formations in the game, and the price should reflect that.

Previously the Leviathan was 350-ish points and was rarely taken because the infantry that it was carrying wasn't very good. Now with the new boosted core infantry we'll have to playtest to see if it has a knock-on effect on they usefulness of the Leviathan Transport.

Plus there is a option for a all War Engine army that I'm worried might be too over powered.

Core:

2 x Leviathans, stuffed with warriors/thunderers with thudd guns and thunderfires firing from the top platform

Support:

4 x Overlords

Rare:

1000 points of Cyclops/Colossus/Land Train.

It might be overthinking it, but I worry that it is a lot of 4+ RA War Engines to face and a lot of Doomsday Cannons.

Elsaurio wrote:

ffoley wrote:

So I think the EUK and current NetEA Leviathan are essentially the same except one has only 2 void shields and a fighting platform.

I'd agree that it's the fighting deck that might make it hard to balance the Leviathan. The Cadian list only has a single formation with a Leviathan, but Squats have so much more flexibility with what can go up there.

Still, i dont know that i'm taking them at 300+ points. Your list above only has 8 activations, is slow and is over 3000 points. Sure there is a lot of RA, but once a couple those formations get broken, the rest are going to get cross-fired and assaulted to death.
I'd like to use mine in a list, so I'm curious if anyone has tried them in your group? How do they actually perform in a game?

Author:	StevekCole [ Wed Aug 31, 2016 12:46 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Let's Talk 5: Core Infantry Changes
175 is fine if attaching to infantry as it seriously limits their mobility due to lost rhinos. Agree 175 as an independent war engine is outrageous. I'd be taking 5 if that were the case. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Author:	Beefcake4000 [ Thu Sep 01, 2016 5:12 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Let's Talk 5: Core Infantry Changes
StevekCole wrote: 175 is fine if attaching to infantry as it seriously limits their mobility due to lost rhinos. Agree 175 as an independent war engine is outrageous. I'd be taking 5 if that were the case. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Ben if it gets through at 175 as a core attachment I promise you I will break the army so hard and so publicly they will become a dead race for real.

Author:	Elsaurio [ Thu Sep 01, 2016 6:57 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Let's Talk 5: Core Infantry Changes
StevekCole wrote: 175 is fine if attaching to infantry as it seriously limits their mobility due to lost rhinos. Agree 175 as an independent war engine is outrageous. I'd be taking 5 if that were the case. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk That's a typo. They're 375. The only overpowered core WE transport that goes for 175 is the orkasaurus.

Author:	Elsaurio [ Thu Sep 01, 2016 6:58 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Let's Talk 5: Core Infantry Changes
Beefcake4000 wrote: StevekCole wrote: 175 is fine if attaching to infantry as it seriously limits their mobility due to lost rhinos. Agree 175 as an independent war engine is outrageous. I'd be taking 5 if that were the case. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Ben if it gets through at 175 as a core attachment I promise you I will break the army so hard and so publicly they will become a dead race for real. You already DID break them. At cancon. Now they are the only raced banned at the tournament that allowed every other half baked experimental race in the doors

Author:	StevekCole [ Thu Sep 01, 2016 12:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Let's Talk 5: Core Infantry Changes
375 probably is overpriced when attached to infantry (especially when you factor in lost cost of rhinos). Agree (with benefit of hindsight) 175 would be far too cheap (at least Orkeasaurus aren't fearless and don't have doomsday cannons). Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Let's Talk 5: Core Infantry Changes http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=134&t=31505	Page 3 of 5

Author:	Elsaurio [ Fri Sep 02, 2016 1:59 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Let's Talk 5: Core Infantry Changes
StevekCole wrote: 375 probably is overpriced when attached to infantry (especially when you factor in lost cost of rhinos). Agree (with benefit of hindsight) 175 would be far too cheap (at least Orkeasaurus aren't fearless and don't have doomsday cannons). Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk I think in the current test document we're playing around with 325. It's a hard number to judge as the 'worth' of a infantry transport unit is often tied into the value of the infantry it is delivery, and that is still being worked on. Especially as we have adopted the Cadian rules that allows units to fire from the open hatch. Once the core infantry choices are nailed down it will be worth adjusting the prices of the leviathan up or down. I've never seen it as a worthy pick for Squats, but I have faced Cadians with one and it's a worthy place for them to bunker the Sup Commander, hiding in the back with the Doomsday Cannon

Author:	ffoley [ Fri Sep 02, 2016 9:58 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Let's Talk 5: Core Infantry Changes
So I think the EUK and current NetEA Leviathan are essentially the same except one has only 2 void shields and a fighting platform.

Author:	Elsaurio [ Fri Sep 02, 2016 3:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Let's Talk 5: Core Infantry Changes
ffoley wrote: So I think the EUK and current NetEA Leviathan are essentially the same except one has only 2 void shields and a fighting platform. It's the changing core infantry that might have an effect on the price/worth of the Leviathan, not the Leviathan itself. For example, a Thunderhawk is pretty useless if all it is transporting is Imperial Guard, as they are reasonably useless in an engagement. Similarly Space Marine Terminators are kinda weak if they have to footslog all the way across the table to get into CC. But if you marry up the Terminators and Thunderhawks together you get one of the most dangerous and effective formations in the game, and the price should reflect that. Previously the Leviathan was 350-ish points and was rarely taken because the infantry that it was carrying wasn't very good. Now with the new boosted core infantry we'll have to playtest to see if it has a knock-on effect on they usefulness of the Leviathan Transport. Plus there is a option for a all War Engine army that I'm worried might be too over powered. Core: 2 x Leviathans, stuffed with warriors/thunderers with thudd guns and thunderfires firing from the top platform Support: 4 x Overlords Rare: 1000 points of Cyclops/Colossus/Land Train. It might be overthinking it, but I worry that it is a lot of 4+ RA War Engines to face and a lot of Doomsday Cannons.

Author:	taiaha [ Sat Sep 03, 2016 5:31 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Let's Talk 5: Core Infantry Changes
Elsaurio wrote: ffoley wrote: So I think the EUK and current NetEA Leviathan are essentially the same except one has only 2 void shields and a fighting platform. It's the changing core infantry that might have an effect on the price/worth of the Leviathan, not the Leviathan itself. For example, a Thunderhawk is pretty useless if all it is transporting is Imperial Guard, as they are reasonably useless in an engagement. Similarly Space Marine Terminators are kinda weak if they have to footslog all the way across the table to get into CC. But if you marry up the Terminators and Thunderhawks together you get one of the most dangerous and effective formations in the game, and the price should reflect that. Previously the Leviathan was 350-ish points and was rarely taken because the infantry that it was carrying wasn't very good. Now with the new boosted core infantry we'll have to playtest to see if it has a knock-on effect on they usefulness of the Leviathan Transport. Plus there is a option for a all War Engine army that I'm worried might be too over powered. Core: 2 x Leviathans, stuffed with warriors/thunderers with thudd guns and thunderfires firing from the top platform Support: 4 x Overlords Rare: 1000 points of Cyclops/Colossus/Land Train. It might be overthinking it, but I worry that it is a lot of 4+ RA War Engines to face and a lot of Doomsday Cannons. I'd agree that it's the fighting deck that might make it hard to balance the Leviathan. The Cadian list only has a single formation with a Leviathan, but Squats have so much more flexibility with what can go up there. Still, i dont know that i'm taking them at 300+ points. Your list above only has 8 activations, is slow and is over 3000 points. Sure there is a lot of RA, but once a couple those formations get broken, the rest are going to get cross-fired and assaulted to death. I'd like to use mine in a list, so I'm curious if anyone has tried them in your group? How do they actually perform in a game?

Author:	Elsaurio [ Sun Sep 04, 2016 11:50 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Let's Talk 5: Core Infantry Changes
taiaha wrote: Elsaurio wrote: ffoley wrote: So I think the EUK and current NetEA Leviathan are essentially the same except one has only 2 void shields and a fighting platform. It's the changing core infantry that might have an effect on the price/worth of the Leviathan, not the Leviathan itself. For example, a Thunderhawk is pretty useless if all it is transporting is Imperial Guard, as they are reasonably useless in an engagement. Similarly Space Marine Terminators are kinda weak if they have to footslog all the way across the table to get into CC. But if you marry up the Terminators and Thunderhawks together you get one of the most dangerous and effective formations in the game, and the price should reflect that. Previously the Leviathan was 350-ish points and was rarely taken because the infantry that it was carrying wasn't very good. Now with the new boosted core infantry we'll have to playtest to see if it has a knock-on effect on they usefulness of the Leviathan Transport. Plus there is a option for a all War Engine army that I'm worried might be too over powered. Core: 2 x Leviathans, stuffed with warriors/thunderers with thudd guns and thunderfires firing from the top platform Support: 4 x Overlords Rare: 1000 points of Cyclops/Colossus/Land Train. It might be overthinking it, but I worry that it is a lot of 4+ RA War Engines to face and a lot of Doomsday Cannons. I'd agree that it's the fighting deck that might make it hard to balance the Leviathan. The Cadian list only has a single formation with a Leviathan, but Squats have so much more flexibility with what can go up there. Still, i dont know that i'm taking them at 300+ points. Your list above only has 8 activations, is slow and is over 3000 points. Sure there is a lot of RA, but once a couple those formations get broken, the rest are going to get cross-fired and assaulted to death. I'd like to use mine in a list, so I'm curious if anyone has tried them in your group? How do they actually perform in a game? They haven't been tested yet, which is what I am flagging. One of the key aspects of testing a new list is to brainstorm a few really broken lists and test them. The all-war engine is just an example of one of them.

Author:	Mark W [ Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Let's Talk 5: Core Infantry Changes
Thats an intresting list, only thing I would say is an 8 activation Squat list with 4 units that are very easy to lose in assaults, and middling air cover(Overlords are good but no Thunderfires) is asking for trouble. Turn 1 Opponent either teleports in or uses air assualts. Kills one Overlord, retains assualting another, taking you down 2 activations. Depending on his army he could either then escape from units that could reply(Eldar) or sacrifice the unit to put BM's on your few remaining units by allowing the odd model support fire. You've yet to move amodel and your already at 6 activations to an opponents 11-12. All of which could have been avoided with some Thunderfires, Gyrocopters(Starting the game on OW these are gold), taking a few more activations so loss of a few isn't crippling. If anyone does try this list out and can make it work I'd be intrested to hear about it, though.

Author:	StevekCole [ Thu Sep 22, 2016 10:20 am ]
Post subject:	Let's Talk 5: Core Infantry Changes
It's also very slow. I'd think all the standard feral Ork counter strategies would apply but they wouldn't have feral 12-15 acivations to compensate. Eg play corners to pretty much guarantee a draw. The fastest units would be overlords and they're the last thing you want to push on with (as long as we are removing spotter from them - if you still have spotter it'll be awesome 4+ indirect fire macro barrages) Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Author:	taiaha [ Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Let's Talk 5: Core Infantry Changes
I tested some of these changes in a game yesterday. I dont have a detailed BatRep, but have some comments from my opponent and myself. My list was: Warriors 1 hearthguard, 5 warrior 200 2 Thunderfires 100 Thunderers 4 thunderers, 2 warrior 200 2 thunderfires 100 Bezerkers 1 hearthguard, 5 bezerkers 175 2 warrior, 2 bezerkers 75 Grand warlord 100 Bezerkers 1 hearthguard, 5 bezerkers 175 Gyrocopters 4 gyrocopters 250 (I used UK list for these) Gyrocopters 4 gyrocopters 250 Thudd Guns 6 thudd guns 225 Bike Guild Guildmaster, 3 trikes, 4 bikes 225 Colossus 450 AA Pintel 25 Land train Engine 225 4 Bezerker Cars 200 AA Pintel 25 TOTAL 3000 I was facing Codex Necrons 3 phalanx + some upgrades 3 monolith flayed ones C'tan Warbarque 2 pylon I got pretty much destroyed by engagements - I managed to keep it to 1-1 turn 3, and lost 3-1 on turn 4, but i had almost nothing left on the board. I did make a couple mistakes, but i think they didnt really affect the outcome much. The infantry formations are all small and very brittle - even with the thunderfires added they got slaughtered. The only exception was the big bezerkers with the Grand warlord - and I think they survived mostly because they were operating far from where the action was. My opponent didnt have aircraft, but if he did I'm not sure how to use the infantry. If i push them forward, they are in danger of dying very easliy (and losing my AA), if i leave them back to keep Thunderfires safe, then I waste a lot of points. If i add extra warriors to make them more robust I lose activations (and in this game it was my activation disadvantage which really screwed me) I thought I would try an Assault Land Train to see if it's a viable option - though my opponent commented that the current rules which increase the close combat to CC2+ seem pretty broken. (maybe it should be capped at 4+). He didnt need to worry - the thing is sooo slow that even Necrons at walking pace were able to avoid it. On the plus side, the Colossus soaked up a huge amount of firepower and did a solid job. And the Thunderer formation can throw out a lot of AP shots if it gets a good target. Anyone else tried out the new formations? I'll plan another game soon - hopefully not against Necrons (I hate Necrons).

Author:	Elsaurio [ Sun Oct 16, 2016 3:47 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Let's Talk 5: Core Infantry Changes
Thankyou for the report Taiaha. It's good to see that the changes aren't immediately meaning a Squat victory. I'd like to see more reports - hopefully against the three core races (Ork, IG, SM) and especially with focus on how AA goes.

Author:	Engmir [ Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Let's Talk 5: Core Infantry Changes
I much rather see a 10 strong unit of warriors sans rhinos for 250 to hold my line. Six strong units is just meh. Core units of basic infantry are usually larger, squats are more akin to guardsmen than space marines. In fact I wouldnś mind if warriors were even statted the same as guardsmen and do 10 for 200 pts. (all prices incl hearthguard) The existence of clipping is not an argument. Position better.

Page 3 of 5	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/