Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

Minotaurs v1

 Post subject: Minotaurs v1
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5121
Location: Bristol
Hazzah - at long last I have my list ready for the Minotaurs chapter to post up and share. I had to write it up on a spreadsheet on my tablet and it was neceserry to do the list and the unit stats separately. It's a list that tries to represent a modern SM army, incorporating many of the newer GW and FW units, so there are more options than the codex list, but I want to balance it anyway and for there to be pluses and minuses compared to the codex list.

Attachment:
Minotaurs Army List.xls [16 KiB]
Downloaded 188 times

Attachment:
Minotaurs Reference.xls [27 KiB]
Downloaded 154 times


Design notes
These ended up pretty wordy, so feel free to skip to the list if you like, but I wanted to explain my design choices, mention relevant bits of background for those less familiar with them from the FW Badab books and pre-empt possible criticisms. I have generally used the stats and costs from the codex list with Dobbsy's trial changes.

Archilles:
Included since the Minotaurs are siege specialists and it is the siege land Raider of choice. The Archilles' background states them to be rare outside of the Imperial Fists (and their successors) and the Adeptus Mechanicus Ordo Reductor. The Minotaurs are neither, but their background talks about them being able to resupply and equip themselves with the best gear and equipment much more easily than other chapters (the background links them to the High Lords of Terror, implying they may operate on their command). FW painted their Achilles as a Minotaurs one and an apocalypse formation in the Badab book shows they have at least 4 Achilles amongst their vehicles. I have differed slightly from the Imperial Fists stats for the Achilles in giving it FF3+ rather than FF4+, as that doesn't do justice to the armament. A single multi-melta armed Land Speeder or Thunderfire Cannon has FF5+ so surely a vehicle with a full five of these weapons deserves more than just one better firefight? Costwise 100 may be ok in the IF list without aircraft to deploy them, but here it would be too cheap, so I've gone for 125.

Caestus Assault Ram:
They are very appropriate for the list, to carry the many Terminators and to ram them into combat. In case you're not familiar with it a Caestus can carry 2 stands of marine infantry or can carry 2 stands of Terminators - unlike other transports the Terminators do not take up 2 slots. This is due to the design of the craft and the special protective clamps it encloses each passanger in to survive the ram impact. The stats are appropriate, but I'm concerned that their points costs - which i have taken from their only existing use in the Raven Guard list - may be too cheap. Terminators transported in Land Raiders aren't taken that often because 650 points is a lot for one unit, but you can transport the same in 2 Caestus for just 475 points. They would have only 5+ Reinforced Armour, but be faster skimmers, have Planetfall and add 2 MW4+ shooting and 2 5+ MW FF attacks to the formation, as well as 2 one-shot 1BP barrages. Personally I would have thought 150 or 175 to be appropriate for 2, but it sounds like it's been playtested a lot as is and found ok, so I'll run with it and see.

Captain:
There was a lot of discussion a while back around how the Captain is the worst of the 4 SM characters and rarely taken, as the Commander ability isn't that useful and the abilities of the Chaplain or Librarian are better. Which is a shame as, by the background, there would be a Captain with every 100 Marines, so you'd expect to see 1-2 in a 3,000 point army. Some ideas were mooted to fix this, but none were adopted for the moment, in favour of other changes first. I'm going to try testing the Captain at +35 points in this list instead and see how it goes. I aim to play roughly 50/50 Minotaurs and Codex SM, so will be able to compare.

Heavy Assault Carrier:
The Minotaurs flagship, the Daedelos Krata, is obviously something different from a Battlebarge. For the moment it's statted identically to a Battlebarge, just with a different name, but this could change. If any of you have the relevant Badab book (unfortunately I lost my electronic copy in a flood and don't was to risk downloading now with only access to mobile internet) can you check if there are stats for a Heavy Assault Carrier amongst the new BFG ship rules in it? I don't think there are, but can't remember for sure. Now that there's a model for Moloc the next FW book featuring the Minotaurs will likely have him leading the force and hopefully have a picture of what the craft looks like in the page showing the forces fighting, which could give us more to go on.

Helios:
The Minotaurs use a lot of Land Raiders and the Helios is another appropriate pattern for sieges.

Redeemer:
The Minotaurs use a lot of Land Raiders and the Redeemer is another appropriate pattern for sieges.

Dreadnoughts:
Minotaurs use a lot of Dreadnoughts and have the Siege Dreadnought in the list for 65 points. I originally wanted to modify the Dreadnought stats as they're miss-representative, but will stick with the existing stats. I have a problem with the Net-EA Dreadnought stats, in that there is really no justification for it having a 3+ save - in 40k it has roughly equivalent armour to a Predator, correctly translated to EpicA as the 4+ in the rulebook. The unit was recognised as being sub-par, so the change was made, but IMO the wrong one, that distorts the capabilities of the unit. An alltogether better option could be to reduce the points and so I am reverting them to 4+ armour and testing 35 points for the Hellfire and Tactical Dreadnoughts (50 for 1, 75 for 2 could be an alternative). Siege Dreadnoughts are also in and 4+, though they are more powerful so costed 50 (I'm considering 65 but will try them at 50 initially).

Imperial Navy:
The Minotaurs are even more independant than other chapters, the "Minotaurs possess a reputation for being unusually xenophobic Astartes, even for the Imperium, as well as often unreliable combatants who do not work well with other Imperial military units." Allies would not be appropriate for the list. However recent 40k has provided two new SM aircraft - the Storm Talon and the Storm Eagle and the former makes an excellent Thunderbolt counts as, while he latter makes a very good Marauder counts as (assuming it to be acting in a fire support role during this battle and not using its transport abilities). They could be statted up properly in the list, but I think the counts as is an ellegant solution to keep the list pure, without adding more new units.

Spartan:
This gigantic (newly re-imagined by FW) big brother of a Land Raider can carry 5 stands or 2 Terminators in the list. Their background states "Many Space Marine Chapters maintain these huge war machines as part of their arsenal and deploy them into the most hellish and destructive warzones, where even the mighty Land Raider would be torn asunder." - sounds like the environment in most games of Epic? - it then goes on to add "Their greater transport capacity also finds particular favour amongst those Chapters who possess many suits of Terminator armour such as the Minotaurs", hence them being in the list. I costed an upgrade of 2 Spartans at 275, 25 cheaper than the equivalent and similar 4 Land Raiders, to account for the net loss of the two twin-linked Heavy Bolters and to make them worth taking. I considered reducing the cost of a single one to 125, but concluded 150 is more appropriate. If taking other vehicles in the formation also then there's the advantage that the enemy is forced to choose whether to direct fire at the WE of non WE targets, potentially slightly reducing their kill rates as kills don't carry over. It needed some way to get to the surface of a planet, so I made it carryable by Landing Craft, in place of 2 Land Raiders.

Supreme Commander:
Unlike his counterparts in other space marine lists, the Minotaurs Supreme Commander is limited to being added only to an Assault Terminator unit - representing chapter master Asterion Moloc himself. The Minotaurs are codex in many ways, but unusual in that they prefer to fight with their entire chapter strength at once wherever possible, to maximise and concentrate their destructive power. They overwhelm their enemies with armour and numbers and are less concerned about the fate of individual marines than other chapters. The list can be assumed to represent the chapter fighting together and therefore Chapter Master Moloc would be the supreme commander, whether he is fighting amongst the particular portion of the chapter represented by the army on the board, or if he is off board/game, but likely fighting nearby. Moloc himself wears Terminator armour and he fights accompanied by Assault Terminators with spears and round Storm Shields. Another justification for Minotaurs armies without Moloc being a bit less reliable than normal SMs is that the Minotaurs short-cut the usual lengthy process of tactical instruction and battlefield raining of a SM scout, using "extremely high levels of programmed psycho-indoctrination and neuro-cerebral surgery" instead during training and periodically again for full SMs. This could also add justification for them being a bit less tactically on the ball than regular chapters. Adding a Supreme Commander or not to your force becomes a lot harder a decision that for regular SMs; as does whether to deploy him on board for the re-roll initially or to teleport him in, but risk loosing him in the heart of battle? A supreme leading from the front is the way they are depicted in the background and I think there's a good case for this limitation for the Minotaurs.

Scouts:
0-1 as the background states the Minotaurs to have few of them and for not very long, due to the accelerated nature of their training, with an emphasis on brain surgery and hynopsis. The Scout-specific Land Speeder Storm transports replace Rhinos and Razorbacks as it has never been canon for Scouts to use these outside of epic. A fast, agile Land Speeder transport makes a lot more sense than Rhinos/Razorbacks magically scouting just due a lick of camo paint.

Terminators:
Assault Terminators added as they fit the Minotaurs tactics and prediliction for killing fellow SMs. The formation has been made 1+ since the Minotaurs are noted to have enough Terminator Armour to equip their full first company with it and that they make a lot of use of Terminators in their armies.

Thunderfire Cannons:
An important part of the modern 40k SM codex list and a weapon especially appropriate and useful for sieges. I bumped the points up a fair bit from the Imperial Fists list to 75 points for 1 and 275 points for the formation of 4 (I very nearly put them at 300). The stats seem accurate to how it should be but it looks very powerful and I believe 250 is too cheap for 4. That's the same cost as a Devestator detachment and the Thunderfires in comparison have 60cm range, AP4+ and a flexible choice of Ignore Cover or Disrupt with their shots. 1-2 formations of them garrisoning on overwatch could be a nasty and disruptive prospect for the enemy. They are more flexible in this list also, as the defensive Imperial Fists list doesn't have Thunderhawks or Spacecraft, but here the Thunderfire Cannons can be transported by Thunderhawks and Landing Craft or deployed by Drop Pod (it didn't have Rhino transports to swap for them as per the transports rule, so I added in a free Drop Pods upgrade. Armour 5+ is way OTT for a single SM crewing a gun - even if the techmarine has fancy artificer armour, on this scale the difference between a 2+ save and a 3+ save on one SM is negligible and this should really have a maximum of a 6+ save like the Tarantula or Rapier in the Skaros list (particularly as a Rapier has 2 crew vs the Thunderfire's 1). I've left it at 5+ as in the IF list for the moment but would like to get peoples thoughts on changing it to 6+.

Titans:
Not available. This is to reflect the highly autonomous way they operate and their mistrust of other Imperial organisations. I don't mean to imply the Minotaurs never fight with Titan allies, just that it likely to be rarer than for normal SM and that with the list having so many extra units over the codex list it is appropriate for it to have some downsides.

Thunderhawk Transporter:
Added since the Minotaurs are a fleet based chapter that deploys particularly high quantities of armoured vehicles and are less caring that normal of losses, such as when using them to deploy directly to a battle. They aren't anything special or rare either - they weren't created yet when the Epic ruebook was written, but THTs are as common as regular Thunderhawks and used by all chapters. I have given them fire arcs for their weapons on either side, as they wouldn't be able to see or shoot things on the other side and I think the lack of fire arcs is a mistake. I'll open another thread to discuss this. Costwise I think the Net-EA ones may be too cheap now that the armour is the proper 4+ Reinforced. I think Epic-UK might have them a bit too expensive at 200 for 1 (with 1 extra available for 100). I think I'm going to try testing them at 175 for 1 with up to 2 extra at 100 points each. I'll welcome feedback on the cost and it's something I'll need to playtest a lot to see if it's appropriate or needs adjusting.

Overall theme: besiegers, aggressive assaults with Terminators and armoured vehicles.
Advantages: lot of extra options with the Land Raider variants, Spartans, Assault Terminators, Thunderfire Cannons, Siege Dreadnoughts, Thunderhawk Transporters and Caestus Assault Rams. Cheaper Captain and regular Dreadnoughts.
Disadvantages: no Titans, supreme commander can be added to Assault Terminator unit only, Scouts 0-1, Scouts don't have access to snipers or free transports and have to pay 100 for 4 Land Speeder Storms if wanted to be mobile, forced restrictions to take Terminators and armoured vehicles formations, Dreadnoughts reduced to 4+ armour.

Let me know what you think and if you spot any typos or errors.


Last edited by GlynG on Mon Feb 18, 2013 4:49 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minotaurs v1
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:48 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Still reading through it but if you're going to use Stormtalons then you need to run them a 1+ initiative etc @200points or you won't get any indication of how they work in the list correctly. Secondly, adjusting the Dreadnoughts to your own purpose kinda runs against the flow. If Dreads get rehashed (feel free to start a thread about a change to gauge interest) then we can look at your list but for now please keep the Dreads as is or there's too much confusion - especially if this is going to be the "modern Marine" list you're touting it as. :)

Cheers Glyn


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minotaurs v1
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:21 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5436
Location: London, UK
A quick skim reveals a few typos, but seems fairly solid. However I agree with Dobbsy on some of the stats; you may well get resistance from forum members where you are tweaking the stats a bit too far. So I suggest starting with the basic list and then look to including those units and formations that are uniquely 'Minotaur' - intruiging name by the way.

  • Land Raider variants:- I have not checked; are these the generally proposed stats from the LR thread?
  • ThunderHawks:- Really not sure about the changed weapons and increased range of the guns; could we use the regular stats please?
  • Landing Craft:- ditto
  • Dreadnoughts:- I agree with Dobbsy about this being contentious, so start 'simple' and build up later. Unfortunately the Dreadnought is one of the iconic units of the game, with many discussions in its wake.
  • Spartan:- Not sure - needs testing etc. Why not include the LR Crusader which fulfills the close assault role elsewhere and also helps with Terminator transport costs.
  • Caestus:- Also not sure here - needs significant testing. It is intruiging, but ranks as the best transport going - much better than Eldar Wave Serpent (with higher costs admitedly) - so you will need to be really carefull here!. Also, potentially negates the use of all the other LR variants. . . .
  • Assault carrier:- Nice for 'fluff' and non-tournament games, but why replace the Battle barge . . .?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minotaurs v1
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5121
Location: Bristol
Sorry to be very slow in replying! I've been on the road for the last month bicycling 1000km and have only now got power for any length of time again while staying at my aunty's place on the Gold Coast.
Dobbsy wrote:
Still reading through it but if you're going to use Stormtalons then you need to run them a 1+ initiative etc @200points or you won't get any indication of how they work in the list correctly.

I'm not using Storm Talons with the rules or stats as discussed, just counting them as the normal IN craft under another name - personally I'm perfectly happy using them that way, as I think it mostly covers their abilities pretty well. Since the list has so many other new units and combinations to test already I really want to keep the regular IN stats/rules for now. If maybe in a year or so's time the Storm Talon/Eagle and this list has had a decent amount of playtesting then I may well include them properly.
Dobbsy wrote:
adjusting the Dreadnoughts to your own purpose kinda runs against the flow. If Dreads get rehashed (feel free to start a thread about a change to gauge interest) then we can look at your list but for now please keep the Dreads as is or there's too much confusion - especially

I've thought a lot about the 3+ Dread armour and, while I don't think it justified for the regular ones or the best solution to them having being poor choices, I'll switch back and use Net-EA ones when I can update the list (my tablet's charger is broken so this can't be for a bit). I was going to argue the point but its been that way for so long I doubt collective opinion would change it now. I read over some old discussion on it and can see some arguments for it, plus I guess Venerable Dreads and Ironclad Dreads are both more survivable, making Dreads on average tougher.

Dobbsy wrote:
if this is going to be the "modern Marine" list you're touting it as. :)

Its intended to be a modern SM list, but not a generic modern one; that's better done separately discussed recently in another thread and this has extra downsides such as the limited scouts plus the vehicle and supreme commander restrictions


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minotaurs v1
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 3:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5121
Location: Bristol
Ginger wrote:
Land Raider variants:- I have not checked; are these the generally proposed stats from the LR thread?

The only Land Raider I've changed is the Achilles; specifically the FF going from 4+ to 3+. As I reasoned in the design notes FF4+ is too low to do it justice when it has 5 weapons that when carried as the sole weapon for another unit give 5+. MW3+ FF is good, obviously, but it does cost 125 points so is pretty costly. 3+ or 4+ was contentious when the unit was being discussed before and I'd like to see it changed.

Otherwise all other Land Raiders are (or should be bar typos) identical to elsewhere, with the small necessary addition of Assault Terminators to the list of units most of them can carry. For completeness (and to save people having to look up stats from other lists) I just wrote the stats in for any unit not in the codex list.
Ginger wrote:
ThunderHawks:- Really not sure about the changed weapons and increased range of the guns; could we use the regular stats please?
Landing Craft:- ditto

Huh? - both of these have the regular stats, I haven't changed them. The only difference is I have added the extra new units where appropriate in the list of transported units e.g. Thunderfire, Assault Terminator or Spartan . When writing the Thunderhawk up I called it's main gun a "Thunderhawk Cannon" rather than a "Battlecannon" as 40k now does, but this was just a negligible flavour thing. I'll change this back when I revise the list to avoid confusion.


Ginger wrote:
Spartan:- Not sure - needs testing etc. Why not include the LR Crusader which fulfills the close assault role elsewhere and also helps with Terminator transport costs.

I hadn't planned it to be in there but will be keep the Spartan, since the background specifically mentions it being a favourite of (their new favourites) the Minotaurs chapter. I actually left the Crusader out of the list then, I figured the flamer armed Redeemer would be better in a siege, and the Spartan has the extra transport capacity covered.

Ginger wrote:
Caestus:- Also not sure here - needs significant testing. It is intruiging, but ranks as the best transport going - much better than Eldar Wave Serpent (with higher costs admitedly) - so you will need to be really carefull here!. Also, potentially negates the use of all the other LR variants. . . .
Agreed that the Caestus is very powerfull and needs to be kept an eye on, but I do want to keep it in as it's appropriate for the army. I read the Raven Guard list thread, where people have been discussing it and playtesting the Caestus, and was surprised to see some not think it that great or think it worth only around 50 points. I intend to test it a lot and see, but I'm perfectly open to bumping the points up to either a flat 75 or maybe 150 for 2 OR 200 for 3 (it's the 2 that are the most concern due to the cheap Terminator carrying potential).

Ginger wrote:
Assault carrier:- Nice for 'fluff' and non-tournament games, but why replace the Battle barge . . .?[/list]

The Heavy Assault Carrier is there, because the Minotaurs have it as their flagship rather than a Battlebarge. It's basically just a flavour change though as the stats are identical, accept again for the list of transported units having the appropriate new ones added.
Ginger wrote:
I suggest starting with the basic list and then look to including those units and formations that are uniquely 'Minotaur' - intruiging name by the way.

The core units that differentiate the Minotaurs from regular SM at this scale are probably the Achilles and Spartan.

However, I'm started from a different baseline with a modern 5th ed SM list (so including Thunderfire Cannons, Assault Terminators and Land Speeder Storms) plus appropriate Forge World units like the Thunderhawk Transporter, Caestus and Land Raider variants, as the Minotaurs use lots of heavy armour. If I wanted to follow the regular pattern I could leave some more out e.g. the Prometheus, but good proxies exists that I would like use as the actual units and I choose the more expanded number of units in the list, even if it is slightly harder to balance. The list does have a fair amount of units in total - 41 compared to 32 in the Codex Astartes list, but that's not necessarily unreasonable as other lists have even higher again - Black Legion with 42 units or Lost and the Damned with 46.

Lastly (to slightly back the Land Raider variants being there) the Forge World team painted up their own personal armies for the chapters they reinvented for the Badab books and the Minotaurs one (which could be thought to be a good example of the chapter) looked like the below:
Image
It might be a month or two before I get to play Epic again, but I do plan to actually test the list, alongside collecting and painting up a Minotaurs army


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minotaurs v1
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 3:49 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8693
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
The Minotaurs are specially mentioned as the Chapter to use when you use the Siege Assault Vanguard list.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minotaurs v1
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 6:54 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:52 am
Posts: 3075
Location: Bristol, UK
Woo! Pedal Glyn! Pedal! Thanks for your email the other day: I'll send you some news soon: I'm moving to the house where we once had chinese take away together and setting up a frame building workshop there!

The Army List looks interesting: I am selling my Crimson Fists soon in order to start a new project once I'm done using better models and think that your list is the one I'd like to use: I have no intention of using marines in anything other than friendly games atm so hope to start testing it in a month or two. If I get time I'll give some feedback too but I've not kept track of the development for many marine lists nor the discussions on stats and costings.

Nevertheless, gimme some time and I'll give it a whirl :-)

Safe cycling!
Yrs,
R>

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minotaurs v1
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:38 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5121
Location: Bristol
Hey Ry :) I'm pleased to hear about the frame building workshop! Hope the new place is going well! Things are good here. I decided I am going to do a blog for my cycle tour in the end and I need to sort through my photos, write about my journey so far and figure that out. I hope to try and do that in the next week or two so and I'll email you back properly around the same time then.

The last month has been great but I have to take a break from cycling for some time now. I'm currently staying with my auntie and cousins (on the Gold Coast, 100k or so south from Brisbane) who I hadn't seen for several years. I'm also entirely out of money and need to find a job or two ASAP to pay off debt and save (either here or in Brisbane) before I can cycle on again. I also need to do 3 months of farm work between now and the end of December, as a requirement for being able to renew my working holiday visa for a second year. A lot of stuff needs to get sorted, but I probably won’t be cycling on till the end of the year now, which is a bit of a shame.

Good to you here you might give the list a whirl, I’ll be interested to hear how you get on with them.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minotaurs v1
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 5678
Location: Australia
GlynG wrote:
Archilles:
Included since the Minotaurs are siege specialists and it is the siege land Raider of choice. The Archilles' background states them to be rare outside of the Imperial Fists (and their successors) and the Adeptus Mechanicus Ordo Reductor. The Minotaurs are neither, but their background talks about them being able to resupply and equip themselves with the best gear and equipment much more easily than other chapters (the background links them to the High Lords of Terror, implying they may operate on their command). FW painted their Achilles as a Minotaurs one and an apocalypse formation in the Badab book shows they have at least 4 Achilles amongst their vehicles. I have differed slightly from the Imperial Fists stats for the Achilles in giving it FF3+ rather than FF4+, as that doesn't do justice to the armament. A single multi-melta armed Land Speeder or Thunderfire Cannon has FF5+ so surely a vehicle with a full five of these weapons deserves more than just one better firefight? Costwise 100 may be ok in the IF list without aircraft to deploy them, but here it would be too cheap, so I've gone for 125.


Glyn

The use of the Achilles is neither here nor there. What I do have a concern over is the FF change with no discussion - especially seeing this list is not titled 'fan list'. If we are trying to get parity across the NETEA lists, changing base units without a discussion and agreement is not helpful.

In the whole scheme of the list, is it really going to be a problem to move the stats to parity until you can convince otherwise?

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Chaos Squats


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minotaurs v1
PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:28 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5121
Location: Bristol
I’m perfectly happy to discuss the Achilles and had been planning to. Both lists should obviously agree on one set of stats for the unit, but I’m proposing that that the 3+ version would be more appropriate.

As I wrote above FF4+ rather than FF3+, just doesn't do justice to the armament. A single multi-melta armed Land Speeder or Thunderfire Cannon has FF5+ so surely a vehicle with a full five of these weapons deserves more than just one better firefight? It recognise that it is a very powerful unit, but limited in your list by the lack of aircraft to deploy it and limited in mine by costing more again at 125 points each.

Reading back through previous discussion threads for mentions of the Achilles myself, Black Legion and E&C all think the Achilles should have the single MW FF3+ attack. E&C has suggested it a few times. From the first two posts [ur=http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=19434&hilit=achilles&start=225]here[/url] it seemed that Morgan Vening was the most against it and that you were open to either possibility.

I’ll be interested to know how you have been finding it in battle more recently and what your and other peoples’ thoughts are on it?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minotaurs v1
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:52 am
Posts: 3075
Location: Bristol, UK
Where have these files gone Glyn?

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minotaurs v1
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 4:51 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5121
Location: Bristol
Hi Ry, sorry to be slow in replying. I'm not sure where the original ones went, but I dug out the files and have uploaded them again. Post up how you get on if you try the list.


Attachments:
Minotaurs Army List.xls [16 KiB]
Downloaded 96 times
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net