Well it is infantry theme. Discounting the Walker support group, two of the three formations (with one DG retinue) that can be taken are infantry formations. However IA6 (second part of the Krieg war) does have the DG using Rhinos to get to combat and then dismounting and engaging. Well that is what the list uses. You have Rhinos, but they are there to transport the forces on the field in battle you then dismount (sure everyone else does the same, but still).

_________________
Rare Earth: Conflict - Comments and testing welcome

I just realised that the Defiler Assault Pack is in Vehicle support. Should it be moved into the infantry support slots?

Also I have another question. Should Terminators be prevented from taking a Dreadclaw upgrade? This would leave only Drop Retinue then able to drop from orbit, giving it an unique position in the list. Can btw Dreadclaws carry walkers, eg Defiler? One thing that could be done would be to allow Defiler pack to drop down as well .

_________________
Rare Earth: Conflict - Comments and testing welcome

Also since I'm on the roll here. Mageboltrat suggested following in warseer while this place was down (note that these both would replace the Plague Marine upgrade):


I'm thinking about following. This is infantry based list so allowing a bit more granularity might not be such a bad idea.
Deathguard Auxiliaries: add up to four Plague Marines to the formation or four Death Guard Marines to the formation 75 points per two units

_________________
Rare Earth: Conflict - Comments and testing welcome

Dradclaws can only transport Infantry and Dreadnoughts. Defilers are to big.

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

No



There is nothing unique about it. Why would Terminators pay for Dreadclaws when they can teleport? Just leave it. If someone is silly enough to pay for them, then they should be allowed. The only benefit I see is not having to appear at the start of a turn, yet the extra points to do it is just silly.




They carry Dreads fine and they are walkers. I would think that Defilers are a far stretch. So I would say "no" to defilers in Dreadclaws.

I am not in favour of anything that does not give the possibility to sticking with the fluff of sacred numbers. It would be good to have something that allows a formation of 7 in the Death Guard.

I am just one opinion however...

I personally think the fluff of the sacred number is stupid for Deathguard formation size... seeing as you can base between 3-5 on each infantry base... there in no reason to think that 7 units will have a multiple of 7 models in them... One could be a Daemon Prince with 2 bodyguard.. or a converted lord on palenque...

Also 7 is the sacred number of Nurgle but do you leave Smelly Bob, Stinky Pete, Fat Ron, Gribbly Phil at home just because 3 of their mates got shot last battle and they can no longer hang out in a group of 7.. No ofc not. they would field in Adhock formations, down to how many they have at the time in their warband.

_________________

My Photobucket

The rules actually say 3-7 models per infantry base... but I don't think I've seen anyone go all the way to 7 with anything.

hmm mount my Plague Marines 7 to a base... it's an idea.

_________________

My Photobucket

Why I think firestorm40k did this ...

Edit: Ah it was Slaanesh, see thread below. Any nice mod to see if the thread could be fixed would also be nice ...
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9052

_________________
Rare Earth: Conflict - Comments and testing welcome

Reason why? Is there any basis to such a direct statement?

I have advised why in the points count that will work (from experience). I am interested in understanding what you find so 'stupid' about it and your determinations to that conclusion.

Also I am interested in how one determines what fluff to ignore and what to go by. Why adopt AR3+? Is it because it is "fluffy"?

So where do you draw the line.?

If there are answers given to adopt the fluff and keep everything smooth and balanced, why is there such a reluctance to accept an ideal?

At the end of the day, you want people to play a list. For many, if the fluff does not add up, and there are other choices, what do you think they will do... ?

I am only attempting to give the list it's full potential with this persistence towards the sacred number. For all of us from the "Realm of Chaos" days, stating long established 'fluff' is "stupid" is not really the way to go IMO. So is the reluctance not to even consider alternatives given.

I'm not saying that 7 being the sacred number is stupid.. I'm saying it's stupid to apply it to number units which in themself are fluid in size. Also as I said a warband is a warband.. why would you go .. I had 14 marines... I lost one.. now I must leave 6 at home so I have the sacred number... it makes no sense. It's a too literal interpretation of the fluff.

_________________

My Photobucket

We are talking about units here (bases) and not miniatures on a base - correct?

My proposal is to take the formation of 6 units (bases) to seven units to form the formation. Regardless of any story that states 'Johnny got shot'. Epic does not work to that detail.

Also this is to be the definitive Death Guard list - not a Warband from my understanding. Hence why I am being such a stickler to the sacred number.

Agreed.

_________________
Troublemaker Games
"Like" Troublemaker Games on Facebook!

It'll be difficult, since the current board theme places the edit button at the end of a post. So the button needed to edit the post and fix the error is in the bit that's been eaten by the error. You'd probably have to examine the source to find the url to edit the post and copy it into the location bar manually.

(The error, incidentally is a bit that goes <!--QuoteBegin> and presumably should be <!--QuoteBegin-->. Since the comment isn't closed properly, a huge chunk of the rest of the page gets commented out. I'm guessing it got mashed up somewhere in the forum conversion. It's happened in a few other threads as well.)

_________________
"Good ale, the true and proper drink of Englishmen. He is not deserving of the name of Englishman who speaketh against ale, that is good ale."
- George Borrow