Air - I'm vindicated! (Maybe.)
Alternatively keep the flak as it is but make it match every other eldar plane and have it fire forward (initially I assumed the stats were a misprint actually).
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Saim Hann Development http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5681 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | MC23 [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 4:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Saim Hann Development |
So I'm playing catch up with this army now because I wasn't following it as closely before. Here's the first couple of things as I look over everything. From what I gathered the list seems to still be on the too powerful side. Where do you players think that might be coming from? All inclusive list. This army does break my philosophy and being able to fully work for all forms of deployment from that craftworld. Saim Hann ground pounders will have to use a lesser craftworld list for those forces (they aren't of the same mindset of the Wild Riders anyway). How slow is too slow. As I see things right now, the Wild Rider's list is and advance forward force (like you can hold these guys back). Because of this Engines of Vaul would be too slow like the Phantom & Warlock Titans. They shouldn't be in this list. The battlefield Wraithgates wouldn't have been able to have been erected nearby either, that should be dropped as well). These things might also address the power issue as well, I don't know yet. Rangers and Warwalkers are still fine as they are advance garrison troupes anyway. Well I guess this might be a lot to chew on so I won't make any changes until we have a good discussion on it. |
|
| Author: | The_Real_Chris [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Saim Hann Development |
Air was a problem in the games friends played. Some batreps I think on the old epic forum. |
|
| Author: | MC23 [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 8:59 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Saim Hann Development | ||
Defense agianst air or the power of a 1+ air force? |
|||
| Author: | The_Real_Chris [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Saim Hann Development |
Defense against air was fine I think - the big beast was used as mobile flak due to its 360 flak arc (something the other eldar planes didn't get). Both the games I reported on were low points and the defense against the eldar air was very tricky. Have to go and hunt down the reports to know exactly went on - it was a long time ago! Otherwise others were commenting on the rolling wave of jetbike assualts people would attempt, often successfully. |
|
| Author: | wargame_insomniac [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 10:09 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Saim Hann Development | ||
Would Saim Hann really use Rangers that much. Does n't fit in with my personal idea of the way that they would fight. Dropping Rangers would further emphasize the character of the list and emphasize character those lists like Alatoic who field a lot of Rangers. Cheers James |
|||
| Author: | MC23 [ Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:00 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Saim Hann Development | ||
I don't see any a need to restrict the numbers of Rangers and I don't agree with dropping them. Wild Riders forces are just going to to "meet them" where the action is. I could perhaps making them mandatory deployed as garrison forces but we'd have to look at how opponents could abuse that with garrison placements and counter garrison forces to try to deny placements. |
|||
| Author: | ragnarok [ Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Saim Hann Development |
I don't play Eldar nor know much about them (excpet that N0-1 has tormented me with them too often). However I thought that waith gates would of been there beforethe battle even begun. Having been errected when the Eldar had an empire, thus they would be useabe. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Saim Hann Development |
I think the list is borderline broken. Basically, the point discount for extra units is not good. Eldar shouldn't be a horde army. Not only is it against their character, but the cost of their formations is based in part on the fragility of small formations which these upgrades neatly counter. If anything, increases to basic formation size should have a cost premium, not a discount. Air: The Vampire Hunter is problematic. In the past, I strongly defended it because on paper it looks about right. However, after playing the Tau list Tigersharks, I have come to the conclusion that flying MW/TK weapons have distinct issues all their own. Also, 45cm all-round AA is just too much. Generally, aircraft weapons are anywhere from -15cm to half the range of their ground-unit equivalents. The MLs on the Hunter should be no more than 30cm range, imho. Command and Control: 1+ across the board is harsh. With pretty cheap farseers in most formations, there are few retained initiative penalties and the ability to do a double-retain will never go away. This is a lethal combination for the ground units alone, not to mention the innate upgrade that all the air cover get from it. |
|
| Author: | The_Real_Chris [ Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Saim Hann Development |
Air - I'm vindicated! (Maybe.) Alternatively keep the flak as it is but make it match every other eldar plane and have it fire forward (initially I assumed the stats were a misprint actually). |
|
| Author: | code_ronin [ Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Saim Hann Development |
I like the "horde" aspects of the current list. I am building up my Wind Rider formations to 16 stand units, so I hope this won't go away. Before I played my first game with them (first game of EA, actually), I read this thread and several others about the S-H and wondered whether the 1+ initiative was too hard. I think it probably is. Impetuous doesn't necessarily mean control. Losing the 1+ initiative AND the horde aspects (i.e not being able to buy the large units) would break the list in the other direction, I think. |
|
| Author: | semajnollissor [ Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Saim Hann Development |
Well, not actually having played with or against this list, I would say the main problem with 1+ inititaive wildrider formations is that you can give them a Farseer. That means they are 1+ init, even when retaining. Take away the Farseer upgrade, and maybe some of the unit size upgrades, and then it would be fine w.r.t. the initiative. As it is, this list isn't necessarily supposed to be a hoard list, just a really fast list. I think the size upgrades were supposed to make up for the difference in size that transports would give a formation (an Aspect host with falcons can be 16 units, a guardian host with full upgrades can be 17 units, but a jetbike host has no such love). Unfortunately, Gaurdians + Waveserpents look less like a hoard than 12 jetbikes, even though its the same number of units (I don't think the warmaster bases help, either.) As for the aircraft, I was one of the people who suggested/supported making them +1 init, but that was because so many units are not available in this list, it seemed like a fair trade. Now I've changed my mind. The main problem aircraft was the "flying scorpion." You can just look over at the Tau discussions to see a similar discussion about the Tigershark. I think a points increase or a twin-linking would be acceptable. Still, I have less of a problem with 1+ init aircraft than the wildriders+farseer, since the aircraft will often be at -2 to activate after the first turn. Even beyond everything mentioned above, there are a bunch of other things that bug me about this list. The only formations that can use the wraithgate are the jetbike formations, since every other formation is mounted. There should be an option to unmount formations kept in reserve. Also, there's alot of arbitrary restrictions, like no wraith-things, etc. And who says a Phantom, or Rangers, or war walkers don't "fit" in the list. They can fit, they just have to be massaged a bit. For instance, say that any rangers or war walkers in the army MUST garrison. That would represent them being sent ahead of the main strikeforce as scouts or lookouts. Anyway, I always thought it was funny that the craftworld most likely to get the crap beat out of it in 40k wouldn't have access to as many wraithguard. With as many jetbikes as I've lost in combat, my wraith-ranks are swelling. Does anyone know if Tom is still working on this list? I haven't seen him since the big shake up. I wonder if he still has any interest in the project. If not, I volunteer to ruin, er, become Army Champion for this list. I have no qualifications, but I do live in close proximity to 2/5ths of the rules committee. |
|
| Author: | woodelf_dave [ Sat Jan 14, 2006 12:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Saim Hann Development |
Having played a number of games with this list as it stands I have not found it as "broken" as many others have. Yeah I think the points for the larger windrider hosts could go up a bit and the Vampire is probably a bit too good as well. However stripping out revenents and SHGTs would restrict choice too much IMO and leave it very vulnerable to ATML, Orkamedies Gargants and other "heavy" orientated armies. With limited selection choices it becomes dull to play. Likewise, taking out the vyper mounted Farseer. Its a nice unit. I`d rather see the initiative of windriders drop to 2+. My win rate with the army list is somewhere between 50-60% and with the number of "negative" changes being proposed I believe there is a danger in going too far the other way. I still believe one of the most powerful Eldar units is a tooled up guardian host delivered by the traditional Vampire. An option already not available to the Saim-Hann player. It would be interesting to see other game results to evaluate how effective the current Saim-Hann army is. Maybe I can`t grasp the tactics properly myself but I seem to do OK with other Eldar variants, IG, Marines and L&D (all my other armies) so I don`t think (or hope) it is because I`m simply a bad general. |
|
| Author: | jfrazell [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Saim Hann Development |
I would support a similar initiative style to the Biel Tan list, dropping to Initiative 2+ as well for warhosts. it must be remembered these represent guardians on force multipliers. Aspects, titans, and the avatar represent either "supernormal" nunits or units that have trained for decades ala marines. On a personal basis I would consider limiting engines of Vaul to skimmers only and eliminate wraithlords for the list. My view is that Sam Hain represents pure speed, they would not take anything that could slow them up. I'm iffy on the Avatar as, under this policy, it would be too slow, but its unfluffy to not have an avatar option for a craftworld. Wraithgates. Need to be adjusted to permit all warhost options, including vipers. I would not limit air or orbital support, as that is a key factor for combined arms. Frankly, it also begins to make a boring list if these options are limited as well. My $.02 anyway. |
|
| Author: | Math Mathonwy [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:10 am ] | ||
| Post subject: | Saim Hann Development | ||
Maybe I misunderstood you, but Vypers can use Wraithgates being Light Vehicles, right? And I don't see the option for Wraithlords, either... I'm in favour of 2+ Initiative, too, btw. |
|||
| Author: | jfrazell [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 4:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Saim Hann Development |
Sorry, having a thunderduh moment. I mistook the guardian option as being in line with the Biel Tan list and permitting walkers. ?Strike that. ?  I would continue to limit titans from the equation however. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|