Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!

 Post subject: Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 10:02 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 5759
Location: Leicester UK
I took the list out for a spin earlier this week and got a 2-0 loss against air-heavy codex marines, from my personal view, the lack of mobility of bunkered formations combined with the loss of air assault goes a long way to compensate for the increased durability of stuff in bunkers

I really welcome further batreps exploring this kind of build however, after all, one data point does not a graph make! :)

I'll be playing a few more games in the next couple of months against different opponents/armies to see how this particular configuration fares

_________________
Adeptus Astartes Army Champion, also AC for Imperial Fists and Red Corsairs

various hobby/painting threads: full of 6mm goodness

Army Forge List Co-ordinator (netEA+EpicUK)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 6:49 am
Posts: 141
It's funny, the Warlord has caused a little bit of a knee jerk reaction with our club / community.

Kyuss, That list you've shared from Mard was one written by Beefcake4000, a couple of weeks back while I've been toying with some different builds with IF to get some use out of my SM models.
I ended up playing a game with the aforementioned list against Beefcake4000 and he was using Necrons for the first time.

This is where the reaction seems to stem from as our club has a social media group and there was some running commentary which sounded pretty brutal, particularly towards the end of the game.
Beefcake4000 was getting a feel for his new army maybe he perhaps was discovering along the way certain mistakes and misuse of formations he'd made. Towards the end of the game he was determined to kill the warlord and get BTS, which he did in fact come very close to, however several dice rolls did not go his way and by this point had poured 1/4~1/3 of his army into it.
after the game from memory he was more of the opinion that the warlord could actually be ignored and I tend to agree for the following reasons.

I feel there is one of two ways to use the warlord effectively, First you've mentioned trudging up the field to achieve T&H which means the warlord needs to sustain to use his deathstrike in one of the turns (potentially first turn, depending on opponent and their ability to break the warlord) which is almost certainly going to leave him either doubling for less effective shooting to whatever was game enough to be exposed or marching in one of the turns. Once the deathstrike has been used, it actually leaves you with less fire power than a reaver. sitting on T&H with the objectives 30cm apart can be quickly negated by even a single model that could also be denying TSNP late game. of course, assuming your IF T&H objectives are mighty close to your midway line so your warlord doesn't have to walk too far.

Second would be castled up with your marines in bunkers lending potential FF support, which certainly makes for a hard rock to shift, but that's only really stopping your opponent from getting a full 5-0 maybe. It's situational some armies will struggle and some will flourish against it. Keep in mind I am basing this on taking an "all comer" list for a tournament, you're not sure if you're going to face an army that can do quiet well at stripping the warlords shields and then dropping it with some TK, they're not unsinkable. Simple things like if you're smart with your objective placement as someone facing IF you can make it very difficult for them or even find you're splitting the IF's forces.

I'm happy to run a couple of games for reports from my local area, I certainly don't have an bias or emotional connection to the list if it leads to clear issues that lead to changes to the list as I would much rather play and enjoy a balanced game.

_________________
Epic hobby blog
http://fuddshobby.blogspot.com.au/
https://www.facebook.com/FuddsEpicHobby/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:00 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:15 am
Posts: 270
Have had some battles with, counts as, Imperial Fists. And with the same models as Codex Marines with a Warlord class titan (an Ogre). Battle reports here:

Scout spam with Warlord Titan, Fir Iolarion Titan Clan vs Ogre/Scout Space Marines

Imperial Fists with scout spam and Reaver Titan, Fir Iolarian Titan Clan vs Imperial Fist Successor
But then Mark was a lot of Eldar points short on that game.

Imperial Fists with Bastion and Fellblade spam. Black Legion vs Imperial Fists

The high activation count with a big titan suits my wait and see play style. OK, hide try and avoid casualties and hit hard when it looks good. Imperial Fists with bastions and so forth make the hiding resilience just that little bit easier. Scouts with bunkers and trenches - bliss. Getting the most out of the titan would take a game or two more for me, I think.

The sequence above tracked my thinking. Was using the Warlord Titan as a shooting platform. The Reaver Titan was cheaper and about as effective so went to that. The Imperial Fists Warlord (Deathstrike Pattern) is so much more of a close combat specialist that leaves it vulnerable to being just ignored and the game being won/lost elsewhere. That is what I'd do playing against such an army - unless I was particularly well equipped to shoot up titans.

So finally I went for more activations with even more shooting platforms with the Fellblade swarm.

Think both Tim and Mark both took one look at the Warlord (Deathstrike Pattern) and said . . . what, . . . then, . . . Reaver.
Getting a 15 cm move titan into base-to-base contact with an opposing titan - to make use of the Power Fist seems unlikely. One Deathstrike shot on TK(D6) is a lot of egg in one small basket, and almost requires the presence of enemy titans.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:36 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Posts: 696
Location: Sweden
Hi, we are having some difficulties understanding fortifications in this list. Up until now nobody have played much with these so this might be general questions, hope you don't mind :)

1. The TP version and the one here differs a little bit on the wordings. Which one is the approved version? (We assume both are and use them together but in a tournament we only use the TP so...) the part about 2,5cm wide trenches for example

2. Fortifications. This word is used in several places, compared with Baran Siegemasters who differs between "fortifications" and "fortified positions". Is this intentionally? Is for example minefields a fortification in the terrain effect sense. i e does it give -1 to hit bonus and ignores crossfire bonus to titans in it?

3. There is no FAQ/footnotes in the TP in the "special rule imperial fist fortifications" is this a typo? In the Baran version there is. followup question for example does trenches block line of sight?

4. Can you really split the minefield in 2,5cmx2,5cm sections? (This is not in the TP, there you could basically split it if has multiple parts but no mention of what model they are referring to. Is there an official minefield?) If yes, the minefield would stretch about 1,5 meters if you put them as wide apart as possible, is this ok? If no how/if could you split it?

5. Tacticals in Land raiders can garrison if you take away the "plus transport" and buy minefields instead, right?

More questions/feedback when I have faced them on the battlefield :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 9:41 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 5759
Location: Leicester UK
uvenlord wrote:
Hi, we are having some difficulties understanding fortifications in this list. Up until now nobody have played much with these so this might be general questions, hope you don't mind :)

1. The TP version and the one here differs a little bit on the wordings. Which one is the approved version? (We assume both are and use them together but in a tournament we only use the TP so...) the part about 2,5cm wide trenches for example


Both are approved, if items are missing from one, then use the other to fill in the blanks, the rules for trench sizes etc from the list in this thread DO apply, I'll discuss with Dave about adding them to the TP for clarity

Quote:
2. Fortifications. This word is used in several places, compared with Baran Siegemasters who differs between "fortifications" and "fortified positions". Is this intentionally? Is for example minefields a fortification in the terrain effect sense. i e does it give -1 to hit bonus and ignores crossfire bonus to titans in it?


good catch, minefields do not count as cover for units in them in any way

Quote:
3. There is no FAQ/footnotes in the TP in the "special rule imperial fist fortifications" is this a typo? In the Baran version there is. followup question for example does trenches block line of sight?


all rules from the Baran list apply to comparable fortifications in the IF list, trenches and bunkers do not block LOS as they are considered to be mostly below ground

Quote:
4. Can you really split the minefield in 2,5cmx2,5cm sections? (This is not in the TP, there you could basically split it if has multiple parts but no mention of what model they are referring to. Is there an official minefield?) If yes, the minefield would stretch about 1,5 meters if you put them as wide apart as possible, is this ok? If no how/if could you split it?


yes you can split the minefield in 2.5x2.5cm sections, if you put a significant gap between the sections the tradeoff is that the enemy can move through the gaps

Quote:
5. Tacticals in Land raiders can garrison if you take away the "plus transport" and buy minefields instead, right?


As written yes, although this was not my intention and is quite easily abused I'll adjust the army list to reflect it

Quote:
More questions/feedback when I have faced them on the battlefield :)


yes please!

_________________
Adeptus Astartes Army Champion, also AC for Imperial Fists and Red Corsairs

various hobby/painting threads: full of 6mm goodness

Army Forge List Co-ordinator (netEA+EpicUK)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 1:33 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Posts: 696
Location: Sweden
Thanks for the quick response!

Just some follow up questions :)

kyussinchains wrote:
uvenlord wrote:
Hi, we are having some difficulties understanding fortifications in this list. Up until now nobody have played much with these so this might be general questions, hope you don't mind :)

1. The TP version and the one here differs a little bit on the wordings. Which one is the approved version? (We assume both are and use them together but in a tournament we only use the TP so...) the part about 2,5cm wide trenches for example


Both are approved, if items are missing from one, then use the other to fill in the blanks, the rules for trench sizes etc from the list in this thread DO apply, I'll discuss with Dave about adding them to the TP for clarity
Yes, please add them. There are players in our community who only reads the TP and never visits these forums. :) We also interpret the versions a little bit different, lets say in the TP you replace Rhionos with bunkers etc. so by reading that version we thought that you could not do number 5. (Garrison with landraiders, as there would be no Rhinos to exchange) But reading the list in this thread then you do not exchange rhinos for bunkers but the "plus transport" ability instead so could do 5...

kyussinchains wrote:
Quote:
4. Can you really split the minefield in 2,5cmx2,5cm sections? (This is not in the TP, there you could basically split it if has multiple parts but no mention of what model they are referring to. Is there an official minefield?) If yes, the minefield would stretch about 1,5 meters if you put them as wide apart as possible, is this ok? If no how/if could you split it?


yes you can split the minefield in 2.5x2.5cm sections, if you put a significant gap between the sections the tradeoff is that the enemy can move through the gaps
OK, will try this first but it sounds bad :-\
It makes the minefield (and to some extend the trenches) better if they are made in 2,5 (or 4cm) pieces, and then placed 1-1,5cm apart, then no AV can pass and you get an extra stretch for the minefield/trench. It would look silly and make the setup take longer time... (At least I think so :))

Oh! and a new question :)
Can you mix lets say 40cm trenches and 10cm minefields, or is it 50cm trench OR 50cm minefields?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 1:50 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 5759
Location: Leicester UK
you're probably right, perhaps the minefields should be continuous

on the other question, it's either/or, no mixing

_________________
Adeptus Astartes Army Champion, also AC for Imperial Fists and Red Corsairs

various hobby/painting threads: full of 6mm goodness

Army Forge List Co-ordinator (netEA+EpicUK)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:17 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Posts: 696
Location: Sweden
Thanx again :)

Will try and get a game or two and get back to you with some real feedback. I'll cut some paper trenches/minefields and test some deployments to see how it impacts the game.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 9:02 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 5759
Location: Leicester UK
please do :)

personally I've tried fortifications out and generally find the points better spent elsewhere but you do occasionally get those games where a minefield takes out half a formation or a single stand of tacticals in a bunker survives to contest an objective thanks to bad luck on your opponents behalf!

_________________
Adeptus Astartes Army Champion, also AC for Imperial Fists and Red Corsairs

various hobby/painting threads: full of 6mm goodness

Army Forge List Co-ordinator (netEA+EpicUK)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:12 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Posts: 696
Location: Sweden
kyussinchains wrote:
please do :)

personally I've tried fortifications out and generally find the points better spent elsewhere but you do occasionally get those games where a minefield takes out half a formation or a single stand of tacticals in a bunker survives to contest an objective thanks to bad luck on your opponents behalf!
It's not the fortifications as they are that bothers me, its more the things that comes with it. The fact that you could garrison almost everywhere by making a tail and that you could put minefields around objectives so skimmers and jump packs can't get there.
But as I said before, I will try it out before shouting wolf ;)

And another question, how many stands can fit inside a bunker and what dimensions can it take?

Hope I do not bother you too much. And I really like the theme of the IF :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:22 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:35 pm
Posts: 22
Hi, I also have a couple of questions about this list.

1) The IF bunker save contained in the "Masters of Siege" rule.

Quote:
All infantry units gain a 4+ cover save when within bunkers purchased as part of the army. They may take this cover save against a macro-weapon hit. In addition, they may re-roll a failed cover save against any non-macro-weapon hit


This apparently contrasts with the 3+ bunker cover save for infantry that appears in the "Fortified Position Effects Table" below.
Perhaps: IF infantry in a bunker gets a 3+ save that can be re-rolled as a 4+ (and just a 4+ save against MW/Lance) ?
Did I get it correct?

2) Fortifications deployement:


Let's start from the "Fortifications" special rule, that was taken (I guess) from the original Swordwind (did not check):

So, we can have "spare" fortifications bought from the "static defences" list. These are set up according to this:

Quote:
after objectives but before spacecraft and garrisons [...] anywhere a vehicle may
normally be placed but may not be transported [...] may be set up on the table as “garrisons”


(Perhaps the "may" should be replaced with "must", otherwise it would be superfluous; however, are minefileds free from this limitation?)

Then there are "embedded" fortifications, that are

Quote:
fortifications that come with a formation (i.e. they are part of that formation’s “units”). These fortifications are set up with the formation they are part of and once set up cease to be “units”
in that formation


So "embedded" trenches and bunkers may be placed either in the deployement zone or in garrison range (again minefields could be placed anywhere?)

Then we come to the complicated bit, that is the "Imperial Fist Transports" special rule.
In this very case it is stated something different from the above, since we have an "embedded" fortifications set that must be set up

Quote:
after the opposing army is known but before objectives are placed


This implies that the fortifications may not necessarily be placed in "garrison range" (within 15cm from an objective). But then the formation coming along with them could not be deployed at the start of the game inside their trenches/bunkers, because it would not respect the garrison rules!
This thing is really blowing my brain, could it be just an ill-formulated sentence?

3) This is lighter, general-purpose stuff: trenches length

I noticed that in the Knights List trenches may be 52 cm long, any other list limits this to the original 50. It's just 2 cm, but 52 makes more sense to me, since this way linear fortifications could be split exactly in modules of the same length of long bases. So this is just my general advice for fortification lists.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 12:03 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 5759
Location: Leicester UK
uvenlord wrote:
kyussinchains wrote:
please do :)

personally I've tried fortifications out and generally find the points better spent elsewhere but you do occasionally get those games where a minefield takes out half a formation or a single stand of tacticals in a bunker survives to contest an objective thanks to bad luck on your opponents behalf!
It's not the fortifications as they are that bothers me, its more the things that comes with it. The fact that you could garrison almost everywhere by making a tail and that you could put minefields around objectives so skimmers and jump packs can't get there.
But as I said before, I will try it out before shouting wolf ;)

And another question, how many stands can fit inside a bunker and what dimensions can it take?

Hope I do not bother you too much. And I really like the theme of the IF :)


No bother at all, 3 stands can fit inside a bunker, there are no hard and fast rules about bunker size, but something approximating 3 infantry stands is appropriate, I'd say a max of 50mm square maybe? don't want to invalidate anyone's modelling or terrain ;)

kmino wrote:
Hi, I also have a couple of questions about this list.

1) The IF bunker save contained in the "Masters of Siege" rule.

Quote:
All infantry units gain a 4+ cover save when within bunkers purchased as part of the army. They may take this cover save against a macro-weapon hit. In addition, they may re-roll a failed cover save against any non-macro-weapon hit


This apparently contrasts with the 3+ bunker cover save for infantry that appears in the "Fortified Position Effects Table" below.
Perhaps: IF infantry in a bunker gets a 3+ save that can be re-rolled as a 4+ (and just a 4+ save against MW/Lance) ?
Did I get it correct?


the Masters of siege rule supersedes any other rule for fortifications, the standard saves are included as fortifications may be used by enemy or allied units and confer the standard benefits

Quote:
2) Fortifications deployement:


Let's start from the "Fortifications" special rule, that was taken (I guess) from the original Swordwind (did not check):

So, we can have "spare" fortifications bought from the "static defences" list. These are set up according to this:

Quote:
after objectives but before spacecraft and garrisons [...] anywhere a vehicle may
normally be placed but may not be transported [...] may be set up on the table as “garrisons”


(Perhaps the "may" should be replaced with "must", otherwise it would be superfluous; however, are minefileds free from this limitation?)

Then there are "embedded" fortifications, that are

Quote:
fortifications that come with a formation (i.e. they are part of that formation’s “units”). These fortifications are set up with the formation they are part of and once set up cease to be “units”
in that formation


So "embedded" trenches and bunkers may be placed either in the deployement zone or in garrison range (again minefields could be placed anywhere?)


I'm thinking for simplicity's sake that 'embedded' fortifications should be set up as normal fortifications which also neatly removes the whole 'garrison abuse' problem ;)

Quote:
Then we come to the complicated bit, that is the "Imperial Fist Transports" special rule.
In this very case it is stated something different from the above, since we have an "embedded" fortifications set that must be set up

Quote:
after the opposing army is known but before objectives are placed


This implies that the fortifications may not necessarily be placed in "garrison range" (within 15cm from an objective). But then the formation coming along with them could not be deployed at the start of the game inside their trenches/bunkers, because it would not respect the garrison rules!
This thing is really blowing my brain, could it be just an ill-formulated sentence?


yes it's probably badly written...

Quote:
3) This is lighter, general-purpose stuff: trenches length

I noticed that in the Knights List trenches may be 52 cm long, any other list limits this to the original 50. It's just 2 cm, but 52 makes more sense to me, since this way linear fortifications could be split exactly in modules of the same length of long bases. So this is just my general advice for fortification lists.


Fair enough, I'd prefer to keep it at 50cm for now for simplicity's sake ;)

_________________
Adeptus Astartes Army Champion, also AC for Imperial Fists and Red Corsairs

various hobby/painting threads: full of 6mm goodness

Army Forge List Co-ordinator (netEA+EpicUK)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 12:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:35 pm
Posts: 22
Thanks Kyuss,

pretty much clearer now!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:53 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:14 am
Posts: 170
5 questions:

1. Do rapiers or thudguns really take up 2 spaces in a bunker?

2. Do minefields cause blastmarkers?

3. Can minefields be more than 2.5 cm wide? The FAQ only mentioned crossable with one cautious move.

4. Is the transport rule meant as it is written, that I under no circumstances have to decide what I take (rhinos, bunkers, etc) before I know my opponents army but before objective setup?

5. With regard to question 4: If I purchase razorbacks or landraiders as rhino exchange, will they be dropped if I decide to go for bunkers in a game.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:27 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 5759
Location: Leicester UK
Graf_Spee wrote:
5 questions:

1. Do rapiers or thudguns really take up 2 spaces in a bunker?


no, a bunker may contain any 3 infantry units (I am planning to re-write and clarify much in the army list very soon)

Quote:
2. Do minefields cause blastmarkers?


no, they are simply dangerous terrain for any and all units passing through them (although perhaps they should!)

Quote:
3. Can minefields be more than 2.5 cm wide? The FAQ only mentioned crossable with one cautious move.


they can be more than 2.5cm wide, but 2.5cm is the minimum.... however if you make them wider, you must make them shorter to compensate (ie. a 5cm wide minefield would only be 25cm long)

Quote:
4. Is the transport rule meant as it is written, that I under no circumstances have to decide what I take (rhinos, bunkers, etc) before I know my opponents army but before objective setup?


currently yes, although this may change in the next revision to prevent 'gamey' situations....

Quote:
5. With regard to question 4: If I purchase razorbacks or landraiders as rhino exchange, will they be dropped if I decide to go for bunkers in a game.


no, all purchased upgrades with transport capacity remain as part of the formation, however if you take more than 1 vehicle with a move over 30cm, you lose the ability to garrison (this will be added in v1.4, it is intended to prevent people taking a formation with crusaders or other transports, then abusing the transport ability to garrison mechanised troops well up the field..... although having said that it might mitigate some of the slowness of the list..... ;) )

I will try to get the revised list written up today or tomorrow

_________________
Adeptus Astartes Army Champion, also AC for Imperial Fists and Red Corsairs

various hobby/painting threads: full of 6mm goodness

Army Forge List Co-ordinator (netEA+EpicUK)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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