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

Raven Guard 2015-02-16
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=29613		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Dave [ Mon May 11, 2015 3:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Raven Guard 2015-02-16
Following the plan from the old thread there hasn't been a whole lot of testing so we've fallen back to community consensus.

  • Terminators lost the ability to drop pod.
  • Heavier hitting assault marines (Vanguard Vets) were added in two flavors: Jump Packs or Infiltrators. Not sure if both are needed at this point
  • Heavy Scouts (Sternguard Vets) are back
  • Ceastus was swapped out for the Storm Eagle

The playstyle that I'm shooting for is an extreme version of the marine air-cav list. Smaller formations with various deepstrike options, and the biggest vehicle being a Rhino/Razorback. I reduced the size of the Tactical formation for this, and also added Devastators as they're there in the fluff plus the list need a good infantry firebase.

We've gotten in one game to date with this list. I'm hoping to start playing some more once I finish up the IF and IW playtests.

Edit:

I just posted 2016-02-16 to add some missing data sheets and a Drop Pod/Land Speeder note to the end of the RG transport rule.

Attachments:
netea-space-marine-raven-guard-2016-02-16.pdf [103.87 KiB]
Downloaded 899 times
Author:  Andrew_NZ [ Thu May 14, 2015 7:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2015-05-11
Thanks for the updated list. I've been looking for a counts as list for my
Starship Troopers Mobile Infantry force. The Raven Guard looked a good option.

Some questions, about this current version.

(1) The Strike Cruiser notes say it can transport LV and AV within its 20 vehicle limit, along with up to 6 Thunderhawks, and as many Drop Pods and Landing Craft as needed. This does not include the Storm Eagle which is a War Engine / Aircraft. With the Landing Craft dropped from the list (Too big and not very Air Cav like) would you just slot the Storm Eagle in there. SAY, 6 Thunderhawks and/or Storm Eagles and enough Drop Pods to transport any other units being carried.

(2) The Land Speeder upgrades for the Detachments come with Planetfall. Can you transport the infantry in a suitable carrier and have the Land Speeders Planetfall in beside them? That sounds cool and fluffy and the intention but, gets a little caught up in the WarEngine Transport rules. A note somewhere to allow them to actually Planetfall (ignoring 3.1.3 and 4.2.5) would be good. Obviously the combined formation could not be picked up from the table (field of battle) and flown off.
Quote:
[4.2.5] . . . and are only allowed to transport units from another formation as long as the whole formation can fit inside the transport aircraft (see 3.1.3)

Quote:
[3.1.3] Instead a war engine transport vehicle can carry units from another formation, as long as the entire formation can fit inside the war engine,

(other) I like the reduction in cost for the Tempest. Some potential AA cover for formations flown in (Planetfall) is much more manageable at that upgrade cost, +15 points (rather than +35 points!!).

(more) Love the addition of the Sternguard and Assault Vanguard Veterans. Can't really see myself using the Infiltrator version. How do you see the strengths (disadvantages) of that version? Transport, more units for resilience and Upgrade options, but you can't use the infiltrator extra move when you get out of a vehicle, so slower.

(soon) Will aim to have a game with these boys (and girls? M.I. for me) soon.
Author:  Dave [ Fri May 15, 2015 1:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2015-05-11
1) I thought about this right after I posted. I'd rather not change the Strike Cruiser note, what I'll likely do next time is put a note on the Storm Eagle "Counts as a Thunderhawk for the purposes of being transported."

2) Yes, that's what Neal envisioned and I've done it a few times. I forgot what he said with regards to the WE transport rule as I think I brought it up. I'll have to go through some old threads. Re-reading those sections though, you're right in that we'll likely need a note.

You can transport the Vanguard Vets in a Storm Eagle, that's handy. Or garrison them. You can't do either of that with the Assault version.
Author:  Dave [ Fri May 15, 2015 1:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2015-05-11
Found it:

viewtopic.php?p=369768#p369768

Still think we need a note somewhere though. I'll probably throw another note about drop podding formations with planetfalling Land Speeder upgrades too (which is also fun by the way).
Author:  Andrew_NZ [ Sat May 16, 2015 12:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2015-05-11
Dave wrote:
Still think we need a note somewhere though. I'll probably throw another note about drop podding formations with planetfalling Land Speeder upgrades too (which is also fun by the way).

Was thinking along those lines but thought it was covered OK, pods with planetfall and landspeeders with planetfall all in the same formation can planetfall together.

Yes, I do think there needs to be a note somewhere. This is a small crack in the WE transport rule in the sense that the WE planetfall is not strictly a transport move by the War Engine, but a deployment action by the spacecraft. The payload would need to dismount as part of the planetfall otherwise some of a formation would be in a WE and some not, which is restricted. But it seems to me that that is pushing the rules rather hard; so, yes please, A NOTE NEEDED.
Author:  captPiett [ Mon May 18, 2015 8:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2015-05-11
I took this list for a spin yesterday against Dwarf Supreme's Knight Crusader list. My Lamenters did stand-in work as RG. Because both lists are developmental, it wasn't a true play test, but the knight crusade list is pretty similar to the original. Mobile AA/Arty and better infantry are the big differences I think.
I took a very air-heavy list:

Tactical, SC, rhinos, hunter
Devastator, rhinos, hunter, laserback, 2x LS tornado [bts]
Scout, rhinos
Scout, rhinos
Bikes, chaplain, attack bike
Tactical
Assault
Vanguard Veterans
Vanguard Assualt
Thunderhawk
Thunderhawk
Thunderhawk
Thunderbolts
13 FM of in-your-face goodness (or dickery, depending on your point of view)

DS took (from memory): 1 paladin household (4)
2x Errant households
(4 ea., one with baron [bts])
lancer household (3)
1 barrage/MW household (3)
2x t-bolts
artillery battery
AAA battery
infantry company

I used my thunderhawks in long-range sniping, first at the hydras and then at the basilisks. I broke both of those, which was key. I didn't have to worry about ground AA or barrages for the rest of the game. The rest of my army advanced cautiously, hiding behind buildings and hills.

The WE were going to be a problem for lightfighters like RG, but the vanguard vets proved their worth. Between the +1 EA MW in cc and some very fortunate crit-rolling, I was able to take down a couple of knight formations. However, by the end of turn 3 I had lost all of the assault marines, 2 of 3 t-hawks, the bikes, the airborne tacticals, and all but two bases of vanguard vets. I made a conscious decision to sacrifice most of the air assault FMs in order to take down the knights. I thought more would survive, but as long as I had my BTS and some surviving ground FM, I could accept the losses. It was bloody. In the end the RG boxed the knights in; the dev BTS got the household that did get on my side of the board into a crossfire and broke it on an advance. I think it ended 2-0, BTS and Blitz (maybe TSNP too).

It was pretty fun to play with this list; very mobile and some neat unit combos in the FMs. Not sure if it was fun being on the receiving end though (uberChris calls this list the "It's raining men" space marines). They performed as I expected they would on a good day against knights: they killed a lot with the MW, but died in droves. If there was more AAA, or the CAP got through and downed a T-hawk, it would've been much tougher on them.
Author:  Dwarf Supreme [ Mon May 18, 2015 11:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2015-05-11
captPiett wrote:
13 FM of in-your-face goodness (or dickery, depending on your point of view)


It was dickery. Who, besides Dave, would take 3 Thunderhawks?

Capt had my army right. The Custodian household was 2 Crusaders and 1 Castellan. Capt was smart to cower, I mean hide his formations behind buildings so that I could never bring their full firepower to bear. My CAP was pretty much ineffective. As noted, I was never able to activate either the Basilisks or Hydras. Having either would have made the game closer. (It was 3-0)

The Veteran Vanguard proved their worth, despite the pounding they took in return. In one assault Capt managed to kill 2 Errants and the Baron from my BTS formation.

I'm pretty sure this was my first game against Raven Guard. It's hard to pass judgment after only 1 game. However, I didn't see anything glaringly wrong with the list.
Author:  Andrew_NZ [ Tue May 19, 2015 7:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2015-05-11
captPiett wrote:
Scout, rhinos
Scout, rhinos

The scouts on this list don't have plus transport, so I'd assumed no Rhinos?

Dwarf Supreme wrote:
It was dickery. Who, besides Dave, would take 3 Thunderhawks?

I was just playing around and thought THREE Thunderhawks looked pretty fun!!
Never thought of myself as dickery, . . . but I did like 'its raining men".
Author:  Dave [ Tue May 19, 2015 8:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2015-05-11
I'm guessing CaptPiett didn't catch the no Rhinos. But yes, they're either on foot or in Storms.
Author:  captPiett [ Wed May 20, 2015 1:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2015-05-11
Nope, didn't catch that. I blame Dave, since I showed him my chicken-scratch handwritten list for about 10 seconds before we started setting up. He should've noticed my error :P

Three thunderhawks are fun. So much so that one starts to feel guilty when the assaults are all piled into one turn...
Author:  pati [ Tue Feb 16, 2016 3:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2015-05-11
Hi, i just checked the list. So, some typos/missing ones:
Devastators missing from the reference sheet. Imperial spacecraft still in the reference. In the list, the titans still available!

Any update, battrep, etc? :)
Author:  Dave [ Tue Feb 16, 2016 2:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2015-02-16
I just posted an updated list with the Devastators (and Bikes and Attack Bike) in there.

The Imperial Spacecraft are on the datasheet for the same reason they're on all the other Space Marine, Siegemaster and LatD sheets: I can attach a force list to an army list, not individual units. Same reasoning goes towards the Reaver and Warlord.

All the battle reports are up here:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/search.php?keywords=raven+guard&fid%5B%5D=84&sr=topics

I know I have one more, and maybe another as well, that I haven't posted yet. The 12 remaining reports would need to come from 2-3 other groups though.
Author:  robbypk [ Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2015-02-16
The Storm Eagle listing states it can transport four infantry without Jump Packs or Mounted. Does this mean they can transport Terminators?
Author:  Dave [ Tue Jul 05, 2016 11:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2015-02-16
Terminators don't have either of those special rules, so yes.
Author:  jimmyzimms [ Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2015-02-16
though 2 of them due to bulk
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/