Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 9
  [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

Compare/combine salamander lists
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Compare/combine salamander lists
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:02 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
I don't need to edit the DA list because the LandRaider upgrade for Terminators and Devastators is exactly the same as the Codex armylist :)

For 1200pts i surely expept some oomph :D If i drop over 1/3 of my army on top of an objective i expect to hold (or at least contest) it at the end of the turn. If not, then surely the dice gods are against me :D

Sure the formation is tough but it is a pretty steep pointssink and has a great chance to be your BTS formation.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Compare/combine salamander lists
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:08 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
I don't need to edit the DA list because the LandRaider upgrade for Terminators and Devastators is exactly the same as the Codex armylist


Answers over there but in essence you have two seperate upgrades - deatrhwing land raiders and regular land raiders, each for each formation. I suggest 1-2 land raiders in the listing is better than 1-4 and a faq entry.

Edit - well it turns out you can have lots of land Raiders with devs :) Always wondered why them though and not tacticals?

For 1200pts i surely expept some oomph. If i drop over 1/3 of my army on top of an objective i expect to hold (or at least contest) it at the end of the turn. If not, then surely the dice gods are against me.
Sure the formation is tough but it is a pretty steep pointssink and has a great chance to be your BTS formation.

Wel the formation itself costs 550 points, there is the cost of the lander (375) and Terminators (325) making up the rest.

It just seems quite strange to be happy to keep adding vehicles onto a formation - but not to have a combined upgrade for them.

Also its not an armour list, so why is a very heavy prepondarance of armour possible, as opposed to a variety (variety being more the salamanders I would have thought as opposed to AV heavy).

Since we aren't going to agree on armour any time soon probably, how about assault marines :)

I've gone from less than you (0) to more than you (2).

So what are the pros of each?

I think the current incarnation in my list achieves similar results to yours, but allows the whole chapter to be fielded at 5,000+ points. The added felxibility of being able to get an assault marine formation and a squadron is held back by the fact it comes out of the thunderbolt/warhound (what there are other options?) allowance.

Yours - max one formation, but otherwise all options there - I think does the same, but its not as immediately obvious to the reader. Also there are a lot of assault options for something that is very rare in the chapter (I mean there is more chance of seeing veterins in power armour, so why not put them in?). Finally you would have to play a game of 10,000+ points to get all three assault marine detachments in play.

If you are collecting the chapter this may slow you down a bit in getting them all in a game :)

In essence I think allowing a max of 30 assault marines per 5000 points in the list, split accross an assault formation and a bike/speeder formation with no even rarer upgrades (though I'll accept the attack bike, even though I doubt anyone will use it) gets accross the assault limit better than a max of one formation per 5000 points, potentially all riding specialist vehicles.

Both are undoubtable a limit, mine is both less and more of a limit, and allows for less space to be used, always handy for a handy A4 side document.

But what do you think?

And can you go into the reasoning of other parts of the list that are different?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Compare/combine salamander lists
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:31 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
re LandRaiders. See SG-Forum. Devastators can take the full 4 LandRaiders!

Well you know that my first incarnation of the Salamanders has all FastAttack Detachments (Assault, Bike and LandSpeeder) as a 0-3 choice in total? So you could field all the Chapters Assault Detatchmends  (3) OR 3 Bike Detachments OR 3 LandSpeeder Detatchmends or a mix of this 3 Detatchmends as long the total amount doesn't exeed 3 Detatchmends.

Still i like this version more but i did go down to 0-1 for this 3 Detatchment types in Version 1.3 to be nearer to your suggestions.

And in your version where you can mix Bikes and LandSpeeder its no wonder no one will take Multi-Melta AttackBikes :) Because of this i wouldn't mix Bikes and LandSpeeders.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Compare/combine salamander lists
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:04 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Hmm? You can't. Its 5 bikes OR land speeders. Just a convention to save space. I prefer to work in a larger font but keep everything on one page :)

The other advantage is that it limits the formations to 2, or approximately 30 marines (half the total availible).

All three formations would be 40-45 marines, so not the whole chapters worth.

Still I think 3 is all people would need giving very little difference to other lists. Hell knock it down to one again, but reguardless I like the visual and list impact of sticking them in the restricted section - it does hammer it home more.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Compare/combine salamander lists
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:31 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Hmm, it reads "Five LandSpeeders or Bike units"....i would capitalize the OR to make it clearer or just write "Five LandSpeeders or Five Bike units"

0-2 for Fast Attack choices i'm fine with :)

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Compare/combine salamander lists
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:38 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Actually upon reflection and quizzing a mate back home (who is currently painting Dark Angels, but thats close enough) I agree with you about the armour. Plus I wonder about the impact of incerators (and maybe a couple more incinerators/vindies) being landered into place as a bit too much.

Salamanders after all are about 'quality gear' (not off back of a lorry) and short ranged devestating fire fights, not masses of armour.

So how about as a compromise doing as you suggest with the incinerator but also limiting the possible amount of armour that can be attached to a formation and simultaneously improving the transport upgrade? In essence lumping Land Raiders, Crusaders (hell for now the Prometheus as well until the stats settle), Predator Incinerator, Vindicator and Hunter all together as a close support upgrade, 1-2 of them in total?

I'm happy to drop the whirlwind upgrade as well as I guess its more for a tank/planetside force.

This does allow armour formations to look snazzier, but does limit the size of salamander formations AV wise (no loading up with vindies, hunters and Land Raiders) but I think thats good - we have the option instead of laoding up with infatry.

The list then would look something like the following (with the attack bike included). Feel free incidentally to edit it to how you would want it to look (would track changes work through this I wonder?).

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Compare/combine salamander lists
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:25 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Salamanders after all are about 'quality gear' (not off back of a lorry) and short ranged devestating fire fights, not masses of armour.


Sorry but your list does quite the opposite :D 6 strong Vindicator Detachments?
4 Vindicators ans 2 LandRaiders in one Detachment?

Hmm no :)

I would like to let stay the Armoured Detachments to 4 units.
Iwould allow the Incinerator, Vindicator ans Hunter as an 0-2 Upgrade for Tactcals and Devastators (and Assaults but i think they would only use Incinerators).

Heavy Support: simply call it Helios :D

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Compare/combine salamander lists
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:33 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
So you don't want to follow the core list and allow 1-2 hunters per formation, would you also want to remove the 0-2 access to vindicators for Land Raiders and predators from the core as well?

From playing the above i can reveal its not points efficient anyway to get 4 x and 2 predators/vidnators etc. For an army with MM infantry the points are best spent there (try it, you will see).

As for writing it how do you propose to without allowing Tacs and devs access to 0-2 vindies/incinerators and 0-2 hunters - net result is potentially twice the armour on key formations.

Edit oh and how would you deal with Land Raiders? Sticking them in this way for infantry keeps them under control as it were and works out points wise - plus it makes a vaible Terminator mech detachment (with cost comparable to the whitescar list - course it ain't too hot as shooting as the regulat formation with only heavy flamers!).

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Compare/combine salamander lists
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
A right i forgot about this. It's that your list allows the opposite. 4 Vindicators and 2 LandRaiders insteads 4 LandRaiders and 2 Vindicators.
I looks odd to me thats all :)

So lets see...the Salamanders are a FF-Army. So if you stick Tanks to any Infantry Detachment then they should assist them for FF. Destructors and of course Incinerators and Vindicators come to mind. A 0-2 Upgrade would fit (in total not 0-2 of each tank).
Hunters are defensive tanks. Mainly against Flyers but with some good AT assets too. Should they really get 0-2 too or would 1 Hunter per formation suffice (Tactical, Devastator and all armoured detachments)?

Should the Incinerator really be only an upgrade or allowed in the Predator Detatchment to mix and match with Annihilators and Destructors?

In youtr list LandRaiders look good.

Oh wait i see thatthe TacticalDetachmentis solely made off of MM Tacticals. Don't you think this gets a bit overboard? The whole formation shoots only 15cm!

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Compare/combine salamander lists
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:54 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Destructors and of course Incinerators and Vindicators come to mind. A 0-2 Upgrade would fit (in total not 0-2 of each tank).


I don't know now if destructors should be a close support tank - yes they are recieving a FF boost but thats for balance not design reasons. I think with a 'signiture' unit designed for the list (the incinerator) its a shame to not encourage players to take it. Plus its got a fair bit of range - appropiate for salamanders?

Oh wait i see thatthe TacticalDetachmentis solely made off of MM Tacticals. Don't you think this gets a bit overboard? The whole formation shoots only 15cm!

The dangers of cut and paste! Tis a mistake, as was pointed out to me the formation becomes air assault only effectively.

Should the Incinerator really be only an upgrade or allowed in the Predator Detatchment to mix and match with Annihilators and Destructors?


I liked your idea about making it an upgrade only - there is already a vindicator formation and an incinerator formation replicates this. Plus there is a potential for abuse as an air drop formation.

Re the upgrade in general - in the handful of salamander games to date it was better to create big infnatry formation than tank formations. This applies tot he core as well - far better to say have a vindicator and pred detachment than a pred plus vindy formation, simply because of the activation count.

The 'odd' aspects such as the vindies plus land raiders are a consequence of using a combined upgrade for the infantry where it is really aimed. But should the armour formations be limited to max 6 strong?

Activation count is something that I think should be low with Salamanders (as the poor dears are a bit slow) so perhaps switching back to the old system (additional vindies, huners, land raiders etc) would allow creation of a few big formations - should this be encouraged?

Alternatively is the restriction on cheap 150 point activations enough? Should one of each salamander tac and dev upgrades be compulsory, or should it be left to the player?

Hunters are defensive tanks. Mainly against Flyers but with some good AT assets too. Should they really get 0-2 too or would 1 Hunter per formation suffice (Tactical, Devastator and all armoured detachments)?


To be honest i don't know why the core list has a 0-2 proposal, I thought that was good for whitescars who had a limit on eligable formations and for planetside lists with emphasis on armour. I've tried it and it has some effect - generally your lead formation can have more flak so its easier to advance the army under cover - but I'm not fussed one way or the other. Hence making it par of the 0-2 limt with everything else. Something of a tougher choice for salamanders than regular marines but I'm not fussed there - I would hope vthat points are going on salamndery upgrades not agonising over armour.

Oh another problem with armour is the Razorback. I've yet to concieve of a situation where a vindy/pred/whatever and two rhinos is better than 3 Razorbacks and a rhino. The latter has more firepower, better FF and gives an extra transport space. The former gives a better save(ish) and ignore cover. Unless I have already tapped out on razorbacks (7 for a tac formation) I don't think I would go for any close support stuff. Now its different via air drop as your support is constrained but for the above the ground formation is already pushing 575 points, further upgrades detract from activations. I can't think though how to make the upgrade attractive points wise without it going to low - unless its 2 rhino hulls for 125. This unbalances air assaults more though and would make armour more common - a problem or is this type of armour acceptable? You would then re-jig the upgrade so Hunters didn't benefit from the points break, as they don't need it.

On a more general note whats going on with the Prometheus?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Compare/combine salamander lists
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:25 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
I think the Incinerator fulfills a similar role as the Baal Predator for the BladdAngels.
And isn't there the FF boost for the Destructor because to fill a close support rule for FF too? The Baal and Incinerator are only more extreme versions.
Bevore the FF-boost the Annihilator was the AT tank and the Destructor was the AP tank. Now with FF4+ the Destructor is a close support tank.

Ok Incinerator only as upgrade :) For which formations? All who can take the Vindicator upgrade too? Would be valuable for Assault Detachments because of its speed.

6 strong tank formations should be suffice. Leave bigger formations to the Armoured Marine armylist.

The big formations which lower the activation count will come from the infantry detachments.

I'm toying with the idea that the Devastator Detatchment should be always 6 units strong. 4 Devaststors and 2 Salamanders Devastators.
Reason: A Salamanders BattleCompany consinsts of 2 Tactical Detachments, 1 Assault Detatchment and 1 Devastator Detatchment. One of the two Tacticsals should be 8 Tactical units strong (6 Tacticals + 2 Salamanders Tacticals) so the 2 Salamanders Tacticals should be an upgrade to field not more than 1 complete BattleCompany.
But the Devastator upgrade could be mandatory.

Yes with the 0-2 choice it is for Salamanders harder. Do i take a Hunter, or do i take Incinerators? Perhabs the Add One Hunter upgrade should be separate?

Re airdrop: Is this really THAT hard? I didn't test it so far as that i canthrow inmy own experience.

Re Prometheus. Lets have a look in the Prometheus thread. I'm still in favor with the ComLink specialability.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Compare/combine salamander lists
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:33 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
I made an updated list from yours:

Ireworded some upgrades
made the Salamanders Devastators mandatory
separated the Hunter upgrade
reworded the Transport rule
add droppods for Terminators (just because in WH40k they can use them too) but perhabs we should charge +20pts for them.




_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Compare/combine salamander lists
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 8:20 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
And isn't there the FF boost for the Destructor because to fill a close support rule for FF too? The Baal and Incinerator are only more extreme versions.


No the boost is to try and even it with the Annihilator. Cursory list examination reveals no bugger takes the destructor ? the annihilator is much in demand due to the general lack of AT fire in the marine army

Bevore the FF-boost the Annihilator was the AT tank and the Destructor was the AP tank. Now with FF4+ the Destructor is a close support tank.

It may have become so but I don?t think that was the intent and the armament remains medium short, not short like a vindi.

Ok Incinerator only as upgrade :) For which formations? All who can take the Vindicator upgrade too? Would be valuable for Assault Detachments because of its speed.

Actually for dev and ass vindicators are better as they have considerable AT firepower. But here?s a radical though ? we?ve got vindi formations ? why not replace the upgrade with incinerators? So no more vindicator upgrade for all and sundry, instead everyone has access to the incinerator.

6 strong tank formations should be suffice. Leave bigger formations to the Armoured Marine armylist.

Yes, I question why the rulebook list should be allowing 8 strong formations.

I'm toying with the idea that the Devastator Detatchment should be always 6 units strong. 4 Devaststors and 2 Salamanders Devastators.
Reason: A Salamanders BattleCompany consinsts of 2 Tactical Detachments, 1 Assault Detatchment and 1 Devastator Detatchment. One of the two Tacticsals should be 8 Tactical units strong (6 Tacticals + 2 Salamanders Tacticals) so the 2 Salamanders Tacticals should be an upgrade to field not more than 1 complete BattleCompany.
But the Devastator upgrade could be mandatory.

But equally there are ?normal? sized formations in other companies (the reserve ones). Perhaps make the upgrade 1+, so it will definitively be taken but a player still have freedom to decide how many ? also limit alternative options (see below).

Yes with the 0-2 choice it is for Salamanders harder. Do i take a Hunter, or do i take Incinerators? Perhaps the Add One Hunter upgrade should be separate?

As I would prefer Salamander infantry to be used here I think making it a tough choice between hunters (defence) ?Raiders (heavy transport) and incinerators (close support) is fine ? the natural choice for support should be infantry anyway. I think axing vindicators means incinerators have a better chance of being picked and as you point out make a good option for assault marines (conversely hunters and land raiders are pointless choices for them). Since its rare that you would want hunters everywhere (as lets be honest the tank ain?t that good, its got a reasonable AT value and shoots planes but you only need a few of them ? and besides don?t the salamanders have good relations with the imperium so no shortage of navy support?)

Re airdrop: Is this really THAT hard? I didn't test it so far as that i can throw in my own experience.

The lander itself is hard as nails, plus it allows you do deliver your hardest troops into the enemy or to a flank where they overwhelm everything. As a planetfall its interesting and as an air assault/ground attack its devastating. Hence the proposed cost increase. Think of it this way, for 50% more points over a Thunderhawk you get to transport more men and especially more tanks. Cheapest load-out would be 3 lots of devs ? that?s 24 dev shots plus the lander or 16 3+ and 6 5+ FF all for 1100. Or drop terminators, assault marines and preds plus vindies ? 1275 for 8 3+ CC, 4 MW3+ cc, 4 3+ FF, 6 4+FF etc etc.

Re Prometheus. Lets have a look in the Prometheus thread. I'm still in favor with the ComLink specialability.

I?ve no preference, just want to see something decided to move on!

Attack bike

As this has yet to be balanced at 4+ FF (being based largely on theory with next to no testing) prob best to start at max one for the formation for now, then change stats/expand from there.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Compare/combine salamander lists
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 9:27 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe

(The_Real_Chris @ May 02 2007,09:20)
QUOTE

Actually for dev and ass vindicators are better as they have considerable AT firepower. But here?s a radical though ? we?ve got vindi formations ? why not replace the upgrade with incinerators? So no more vindicator upgrade for all and sundry, instead everyone has access to the incinerator.

I like it :) Go for it! :D Vindicators for Assault Detacthemnts are rathe ruseless because of the speed. Incinerators would be better. I like your proposal :)

re mandatory Devastators:

It seems that therulebook list only adresses battle companies.  The only codex reserve company youcanfiels is the assault comnpany. All other reserve companies would have a few squads to much.
So i see no pint to tailor the Salamanders to field a rightnumber of suqads for reserve companies.

re Hunter: hmmmm. I'm still basing the list around Armageddon. I like this scenario a lot :D So only 2 strong Thunderbolts for the Salamanders, too

re Landingcraft: Surely for over 1000pts i really expect that this force should make a serious dent in my opponents plans :D




_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Compare/combine salamander lists
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 11:31 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Funnily enough with the revisons vindicators are good support for ass. marines - they give good AP and AT firepower and good assault backup. I've seen a few people use them well. An inteesting load out is on a lander where you can get 12 3+ CC attacks, 4 3+ FF attacks and 6 4+ (ignore cover?) FF attack for 1300 points and have the possibility for 4 chaplains and afterwards 5 seperate formations.

Terminators don't need to pay for pods - regulars yes as they have the firepower versitility, but not these chaps (incidentally I was gutted when I faced an AV skimming eldar horde with them :) ).


(BlackLegion @ May 02 2007,14:27)
QUOTE
re mandatory Devastators:

It seems that therulebook list only adresses battle companies.  The only codex reserve company youcanfiels is the assault comnpany. All other reserve companies would have a few squads to much.
So i see no pint to tailor the Salamanders to field a rightnumber of suqads for reserve companies.

Its not stated anywhere and its only the tactical reserves that don't fit - but they are also bikers, vehicle and starship crews so i guess rarely at full strength. My Ultramarines chapter includes them though :) When fielding the boys in blue i like to draw first from a battlecompany then have addittional from reserve companies. Tis  funny style convention for me and fits sending one battlecompany plus support to a hotspot.

I like to leave things to players, but one compromise is having a 1+ upgrade. This both ensures the use of devs and that they will be MM ones. Saying that having the original system should in theory be enough - with few other options if you aren't taking a salamander army for close in firefights why are you taking them?!

re Hunter: hmmmm. I'm still basing the list around Armageddon. I like this scenario a lot :D

I don't want to leave the hunter as an easy choice freeing up close support tanks - the natural choice should be infantry not armour. Plus since the base marines are getting 1-2 its handy for firepower formations like Annihilators to have that choice and support role to 'close supported out' tac and dev fomations.

So only 2 strong Thunderbolts for the Salamanders, too
I'm happy to argue about thunderbolts (on the count of keeping activation count down and 'manders high standing with other institutions) once combined list is out.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 9
  [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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