Moving on from previous version 1.06. I present the latest version of the Vraksian Traitors list for your consideration. I have uploaded a new version of the list. Feedback welcome, Play testing welcome, Batreps very welcome! I want to hear all the hate and love.

Version 1.06 can be found here; https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=17252

I'm aware there have been discussions and hate towards the garrisoning of Malcadors. The Malcadors and the ability to garrison are a key design component to differentiate the Vraks' list from other lists.

The Latest Battle reports can be found here; https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=34909

I've taken taken version 1.06 changed the unit stats to reflect those in approved lists. The points costs have also been changed to reflect those in approved lists. If you see any mistakes let me know!
To This end I've made the following changes for Vraks 1.08:
Change 1; Infantry Platoon reduced from 275 to 250
Change 2; Hellhound Squadron reduced from 125 to 25 each
Change 3; Griffon Squadron reduced to 3 for 50 points
Change 4; Orgryn Berserkers changed from 100 for 3 to 50 points each
Change 5; Hell Bringer Bomber reduced from 450 to 400
Change 6; Chaos Reaver Titan reduced from 675 to 650
Change 7; Chaos Warlord Titan reduced from 875 to 825
Change 8; Supreme Command armor save increased from 5 to 6
Change 9; Vraksian Infantry stats added to reference sheet
Change 10; Vraksian Fire Support Squad added to reference sheet
Change 11; Leman Russ Demolisher added to reference sheet
Change 12; Leman Russ Vanquisher added to reference sheet
Change 13; Chimera added to reference sheet
Change 14; Sentinal added to reference sheet
Change 15; Hydra added to reference sheet
Change 16; Hellhounds added to reference sheet
Change 17; Griffon added to reference sheet
Change 18; Deathstrike added to reference sheet
Change 19; Basllisk added to reference sheet
Change 19; Bombard added to reference sheet
Change 20; Slow removed from Bombard
Change 21; Manticores added to reference sheet
Change 22; Helltalon Havoc Launcher changed from AP4 to AP5/AT6
Change 23; Hell Bringer Reaper Autocannon 1st entry changed from 15cm to 30cm

Vraks 1.081
Change 1; Leman Russ added
Change 2; Artillery Co a 0-1 core choice, Basillisk only.
Change 3; Hell Talon to match current Choas Marine lists

_________________
mattie
http://maashes.blogspot.com/

Malcadors are a bit like Warlord titans. You ignore them and out maneuver them. When playing a single detachment or double detachments of Malcadors, I struggle to keep them a threat after turn one. My opponents have used terrain to hide and restrict the targets presented. Yes the T1 overwatch is a challenge.

The goal is to keep the Vraks list a tactically different animal from the other IG lists.

_________________
mattie
http://maashes.blogspot.com/

The combination of threat from the Malcadors on garrison and the area covered by an 18BP blast creates an unintended situation. This combination is not seen in the other IG lists. The Artillery Co with 9 Manticores was tested yesterday.
[url]https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=34923&p=646449#p646449/url]

The 18BP is has 3 templets and 4 extra BMs. The Bombards and Manticores can create the same situation. Disrupt and IC being the difference between the two. Both should not be option for the Artillery Co due to the blast area coverage.
The Basilisk can fill the roll without being too much. As the Basilisk is 9BP with a smaller blast coverage area. The Manticores and Bombards shall remain as options in the Artillery Squadron.

I was lucky in my test run. Kal had no teleporters for me to defend against. His deployment helped. I would not say it was his fault putting 3 detachments in close proximity. The Malcadors on garrison created an area of denial there by dictating deployment and the threat removed freedom of movement. Which creates the opportunity for the 18BP to be abusive.

_________________
mattie
http://maashes.blogspot.com/

A commend from the Discord Specialist Command by user Baxter-Ricketts and my reply.

I put my one game in <#676419640313774110>
***Understood. For some reason all play test games must be entered on Tactical Command/Epic Armageddon/EA Battle Reports. This is the way it is. I would recommend ideas and suggestion of change by directed to the NetERC chair person.

I didn't see a roadmap or something similar posted on the forum.
***Here; https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 82&t=34910

“I just don't see the point of the list as it stands, being a different looking steel legion list.”
***That is a valid point. As the Steel Legion List was created to stand in for other IG regiments. Quote from the tourney pack; “It can also be used as a “stand in” army list for other Imperial Guard regiments, such as Cadian Shock Troops, Mordian Iron Guard or Valhallan Ice Warriors, among many others.”
***The Vraks’ point is to present the forward prepositioning of units represented by the Malcadors’ ability to garrison. Which was the originator of the Vraks list’s point of creation.
***The Vraks list stands out do to the prepositioning element, the lack of super heavies, lack of close air support, and the lack of speed. You could say the lack of tier 2 infantry (storm troopers). Some may argue that the Disciples make up for Storm Troopers.

I don't know, it seems like a list representative of the Vraksians isn't very popular; people just want a leman russ that can garrison.
***Leman Russ cannot garrison due to speed, 20cm. Yes the Malcadors can garrison, 15cm. The concept of prepositioning is the inherent design of Vraks.
***Its late. I been watching the Bills and greater than 6 beers deep. To avoid confusion on my part. Is it the inclusion of the Leman Russ in the the list that you are opposed to? Or is it the Malcador?
***I did not see any recommendation other than removal of the list. Did I miss something?

_________________
mattie
http://maashes.blogspot.com/

These are the recommendations from 1.06 thread that were never tested. I welcome anyone with the interest testing the option below. Any and all comments are appreciated!

*Removal of Warlord titans entirely and maybe even all titans to refocus on the low tech guard aspect.

*Drop Harbringers and Deathstrikes to further the disadvantage Vraks.

*Remove Malcador and Minatour formation ability to perform march orders (this is slow and ponderous) which helps balance the list somewhat

*Manticores and Bombard probably fine at squadron level.
This one, I agree with and have already implemented the change. The game I played with the Manticore company had OTT advantage in area denial and forced opponent deployment.

*Remove the Armored Fist Platoon. Chimeras should still be made available to the HQ and Disciples formations to reflect them being the best equipped formations.

*Add a 'Workers Rabble' core choice 0-1. A mass unit of cheap canon fodder, No save/ no FF/CC 6+, no ranged weapons.

*The enforcers are commissars by another name. Removal of inspiring for leader.

*Vraksian Fortifications: - One Fortified Position may be taken per Vraksian Regimental HQ Platoon and Infantry Platoon. Fortified Positions (Up to 50cm of trenches and 50cm of razor wire, plus up to 6 gun emplacements or 6 bunkers in any combination.) Add trenches, bunkers, razorwire and minefields. Vraks are a defensive siege army known to use these very extensively and the lack of these in the current list is a bizarre mistake.

*Leman Russ tanks available as upgrades only, to reflect the prominent role of the Malcador. Leman Russes only as a support formation.

* Possibly make the Alpha Legion 0-1? Possibly 6 strong rather than 8 too.

*Unreliable, any core choice without an enforcer receives a -1 to the initiative.

_________________
mattie
http://maashes.blogspot.com/

Dropping Harbringers is bad. They're not game breaking and this is the only list to even have them in it.
Dropping deathstrikes is good though!

Could the workers rabble instead of being a formation (I dislike 0-1 options as it doesn't scale) and instead make something like that as upgrade kinda is this lists versions of grots? Ablative bullet sponges basically you can pad formations with. Make them expendable too.,

Interesting ASR about unreliable. I am interested in trying that out!

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

I would like to test both and continue my abuse of the local players good will.

_________________
mattie
http://maashes.blogspot.com/

I completely support playtesting those proposed changes - (though I propose leaving the Alpha Legion retinue at 8 units and the Enforcer's stats unchanged). But I would still be happy to playtest those proposed changes.

I'd be up for testing 0-2 big workers rabble formations (Core formation) - Also as upgrades as Jimmy suggested.

I agree with limiting the number of Leman Russ tanks, as the list already has plenty of Malcadors as formations and as upgrades.

I do worry that the Ogryn Berzerkers are now over-priced, but that's another playtest.

Happy to test this list out with the group.

_________________
"Live off the land. Go to find war. Kill wot comes close. The old ways are best." - Grodd, Ork Snakebite Runtherd

I am taking 2 different lists to AdeptiCon to test out. One with double garrisoning Malcadors with manticore artillery support. The second with a single Malcador detachment on garrison with double armored fist.

Not all the armor is based correctly. Some how some way bags of bases moved. I used the wrong ones. After AdeptiCon they will get the right ones.

_________________
mattie
http://maashes.blogspot.com/

Quick typo/ clarification question: the Tank Hunter Squadron is listed as follows:

"Three Valdor Tank Hunters"
"Leman Russ Destroyer Tank Hunters"

The Valdors are 200 points, the Russes are 250. But how many Russes should there be? I'd assume three, but I just wanted to check.

You would get 3 in either selection.

The points cost is a carry over from 1.06 list. I can't say why it is different. I can say your the first to mention the points difference. What are your thoughts on why they should be the same or different?
https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=17252

_________________
mattie
http://maashes.blogspot.com/