| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Questions, possible Tech Heresy. http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=21201 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Blindhorizon [ Mon Aug 15, 2011 7:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Questions, possible Tech Heresy. |
So I'm new to posting on these forums and had some questions. First my grammar and punctuation isn't great so my apologies ahead of time. Now is it uncommon to create your units for a list? As far as what i would be looking for i would want to use a primary Skitarii list, but have knights in support. My idea is skitarii crusade armies who's primary goal is to search for lost data <fluffage>. So as far as creating unit's, what i had in mind would be a knight paladin variant that ditches it's close combat weapon and replaces it with a primary AP/AA weapon to move with the skit units forward. Basically a support unit keyed to what the force needs. Also i didn't see any special rules/abilities for the skitarii, maybe i'm blind but i think it would add some extra unique flavor to the army to see a special rule incorporated. For instance the skitarii can use code bursts for quick communication. This could be represented by allowing the request for support fire to be extended by 5cm in a cc/ff. Most weapons won't be able to reach but it could allow for the heavy weapons to possibly send some support to the assaulting formations way. Now i don't know if this is crazy talk seeing as i just model right now and have no one to playtest my ideas with, but any input would be appreciated bad or good. |
|
| Author: | madd0ct0r [ Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Questions, possible Tech Heresy. |
Welcome to the bear pit of rules dev. The army list you describe (explorator fleet) is certainly pencilled in for development. I believe the AMTL army champ want's to get the basic Skittari PDF locked down first. - the list has been through some major changes from stage to stage, so it's not really stable enough to use as a base for a 2nd sub list yet. Otherwise what happens is you get multiple competing lists that then have to be brought back into line with each other, while maintaining balance and 'taste'. On the other hand, if you want to do a 'fan-list' * go for it. Plenty of army lists that are NetEA approved now were based off fan lists. *Ie one that isn't pushing for official status but is just a fun knock around. As for special rules. Is it really necessary? Is an extended support range crucial to the Ad-Mech way of war? |
|
| Author: | Blindhorizon [ Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Questions, possible Tech Heresy. |
I'm not exactly sure if it's necessary for the ad-mech way of war, I just thought something like that might add some flavor to the army. Again im new to the whole rules and have played basic games of small points. I have read titanicus, and it gave me the impression that they could communicate very quickly at any momment allowing for a better command and control of their forces. |
|
| Author: | madd0ct0r [ Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Questions, possible Tech Heresy. |
The 'is it necessary?' question is the first response to any proposed new rule. With probably nearly 50 lists in development or planned you can see why, we'd be knee deep in the buggers elseways. Army shaping priorities (as I understand them.) The further down the list you go, the less desirable the method is. 1. what Formations are appropriate? 2. currently unused units with a miniature or proxy. 3. currently unused units without a mini, but in the fluff 4. An Army wide special rule with significant impact on play 5. Unique or new units appropriate or needed? 6. As 2., but with a new special rule 7. As 3. but with a new special rule 8. A second army wide special rule 9. Variant point costs to other lists it's only a rough guideline, and most lists have at least one army wide special rule, but it's still best to show it's needed. E&C should be back in a few weeks (moving house) so you'll have the AC to poke about the explorators then. (If i don't get bored enough to write my own fan-list first. still should wait for the main skittari list to settle though) |
|
| Author: | Blindhorizon [ Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Questions, possible Tech Heresy. |
Appreciate your list of info its a good setup for keeping stuff moving for the progression of lists. I think i'll take your advice and work on a fan list. As far as letting the skit list settle, i'll probably just mess around with the info from that list with a couple of touches of my own for fun. Thanks for your input all is welcome. |
|
| Author: | BoomHeadshot [ Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Questions, possible Tech Heresy. |
i would definately be interested in looking at an explorator list, it would go with my bfg explorator fleet  but i think it really should exist as an expansion/variant of the pdf list. get that nailed down first or it will all go horribly horribly wrong |
|
| Author: | just_chris [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 9:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Questions, possible Tech Heresy. |
An explorator army is precisely what I'm trying to do with my AdMech. I don't find the current Skitarii PDF force fitting my notion of an explorator force though, so I've just been using the Steel Legion IG list. I'm working on a more AM list though, and I'll be watching this space with great interest. |
|
| Author: | madd0ct0r [ Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Questions, possible Tech Heresy. |
Super heavy tanks -> ordinatus minorus (no majorus for an explorator fleet) leman russ squadron -> knight attachment? sentinals -> survey servitors, ect ect. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|