Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 174 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

Salamanders

 Post subject: Re: Salamanders
PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 2:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
It used to be in the army list PDF.. if the old links are still active you will see it, otherwise I have them on a hard drive at home.

Probs with the all meta formations was they became pretty much exclusive air assault formations. While air transport could be axed, there didn't seem to be any justification for that and it made the army very one dimensional. So the idea was to have an upgrade that was salamander themed that gave formations added resilance. So for a tac formation you have three options essentially - plain, with adiditonal infantry or tanks, or with both. The infantry is at a bit of a points break to try and defray the low activation count.

(The SC used to be cheaper as well to try and make up for more expensive options, must have changed a while back - hell I would be happy to see characters be 25 for a captain, 50 for a librarian or chaplian, 75 for an SC to try and counteract the large numnber of BMs that build up.)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Salamanders
PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 8:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8709
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Form an older version of the list:

Designers notes
This list is a combination of two Salamanders fan lists. One by BlackLegion and the other by The Real Chris. The
originals and the discussions around them can be found on the Tactical Wargames and Specialist Games internet
forums.

The intention is to capture the feel of the chapter (and we outline how we see the Salamanders below) through several
new units and the structure of the army list. No new rules are needed. A complication for this is the rules review for the
Space Marines as a whole. We have incorporated these potential changes into the army list and unit datafaxes, but are
aware these could change. Our time table is to get fan testing for the list until the expected marine changes are
announced, go into the vault whilst these changes are officially tested and then have the list published in Fanatic and
made official alongside the revised ‘core’ marine list. In addition to these notes and army list a ‘complete’ codex is being
put together consisting of Salamanders background, how to use the list, a complete listing of every Salamanders unit with
pictures and relevant Space Marine special rules, reference sheet and possibly special scenario and panting guide.

So to summarise our view of the Chapter (please write and tell us if you feel this is wrong) Salamanders have a noncodex
company structure, a preponderance of flamer and melta weaponry, favour close range fire fights, have limited fast
attack options (the chapter possesses 6 assault squads, cross trained on bikes and land speeders), a higher level of
technology than most other chapters (many Techmarine artificers and a greater ability to maintain equipment among the
brethren) and finally physically slower reactions and a 'more measured' response than marines from other legions.

The army list represents a typical Salamanders task force. The chapter however can adapt as the situation requires and
so you may use any other ‘codex’ marine list to represent a Salamanders army. For instance during the Amerits crusade
the requirements for rapid strike forces could only be meet by cross training tactical marines to use Land Speeder
Typhoons and Tornados and massing the chapters available assault troops. This would be represented by using the
Codex marine list found in the main Epic rulebook.

This is all represented by:
Non-codex company structure – Salamanders prefer larger formations than their codex brothers regardless of the tactical
situation. Represented by allowing the enlargement of tactical and devastator formations, limiting rarer troop types.
Scouts are moved to the restricted section of the list.

Preponderance of flamer and melta weaponry – Represented by weapons swaps on some units and arming the infantry
formation upgrades with alternative weapons.

Close range fire fights – Availability of heavy armour transports (Land Raiders and variants), short range of Multi melta
and heavy flamers, combined with limited ‘elite’ (3+) close combat troops encourages short range engagement and
facilitates closing with enemy. The Heavy transports are required for tactical flexibility as Air Assault options are more
expensive in an attempt to counteract a one dimensional use of the additional Mult-Melta armed squads.

Limited fast attack options – Limiting these formations in the army list both with maximum numbers and joining the
restricted section of the list, as well as removing very rare options such as Typhoons. In testing allowing them as 0-1 but
in the main body of the list, instead of the 1/3 restricted part, made things ‘too easy’ for the marines and they behaved too
flexibly.

Higher level of technology – Allowing the use of restricted armour by more formations (e.g. Land Raiders as transports for
tactical marines, expanded presence of variants).

Slower reactions and a 'more measured' approach – Basically Salamanders aren't as snappy as regular marines. This is
reflected by encouraging the use of larger (and therefore less) formations, limiting fast attack options and altering points
costs to change the value of different strategies.

An example of how the army list has changed to incorporate the new ‘signature’ units would be the following. The new
Melta armed squads need to get up to the enemy quickly, to stop this being an air assaulters dream list transports have
increased in price, but to give them a chance and reflect higher levels of technological skill Land Raiders are more widely
available. Something like the Predator Incinerator is even easier as it has simply replaced the Vindicator as an upgrade
for marine detachments.

General Notes

Why Close Support?
This is something of a departure from the ‘core’ marine list. Rather than allowing up to 4-6 different armour units to be
added to a formation the Salamanders have a wider choice but limited number. The wider choice is a consequence of
flavour decisions made above, the limited number though is to ensure things don’t get out of hand. This is intended to be
an infantry based list, with of course varied means of delivery and support, but still infantry at its core. ‘Heavy’
mechanised formations are fine, they get the men into position, but detachments resembling tank formations with
attached infantry are not and aren’t the intention of the list.

Prometheus
Discussion and testing came up with a neat ability. It’s of limited use in this list though (lacking as it does fast attack
choices) and this neatly side steps any additional restrictions needed. Likely only to be seen in wider games or in a list
built around the presence of one.

Vulcan Dreadnought
Games to date suggest that FF 5+ is too weak and the weapon makes it very, very one dimensional (airdrop assault unit).
FF4+ is fine considering the low mobility of the weapons platform and the short range of the gun.

Salamanders Supreme Commander
Listed as a ‘new’ unit to avoid having the problem of two instances of leader on a unit and any resulting future rulings.
Subsequently found that in a low activation marine army a supreme commander is nigh compulsory!

Thunderhawk price increase
See worries below. In essence to ensure that with the Melta armed units air assault is not a default choice and ground
options are more attractive.

Restrict ‘fast attack’ options
As mentioned there are a maximum of 60 marines in the whole chapter specialised in this. Upgrades such as Typhoons
are dropped as time for further specialisation isn’t there, plus with this limited number of formations (one assault, one
bike/speeder) you get the full chapter allowance at above 5000 points (as 0-x restrictions double over 5000 points), which
fits as you can field the whole chapter for about 10,000 points. Allowing a bigger concentration of assault troops isn’t
justified with no reserve assault company and the above intention to represent a typical task force.

Other points have been raised and either answered online as the result of play testing.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Salamanders
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2014 12:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:48 pm
Posts: 681
Location: Australia
Cheers for that. I'd say you have met most of those goals well.

Suggest we get some people competitive 3k lists posted to see how people are using the list. See if list intent is carried through into people's assessment of list strengths and weaknesses.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Salamanders
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2014 11:09 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5356
Location: Bristol
Why do you have the notion that Salamanders are necessarily a low activation army Chris? It's not the case. If you were to take loads of upgrades all over the place then maybe, but if you use them in moderation then there are loads of possible Salamanders lists with 12 or more activations at 3k.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Quote:
Given that Salamanders have distinctly slower reaction speeds that other SMs (they have initiative 3 in 40k rather than 4, which makes a significant difference in combat with many others striking before they can) maybe the list should have strategy rating 4 to represent this in epic?


Sallies were never seen as less strategic or less able to plan, so rather than a reduced strat rating the effect of fewer activations and slower overall striking speed than an standard marine armies gave the feeling of being behind the curve.

I'm not claiming Salamanders are less strategic, but that their slow reactions mean in practice they are a lot slower to implement their plans and to react to changing circumstances on the battlefield than other SMs.

Surely strategy rating isn't just pure strategic ability but is a figure covering a range of factors? Some of the better Imperial Guard generals might well be equally good at strategy for their army as a SM commander, but they and their armies have much slower reactions and communications so SR 2 is still appropriate.

I think SR4 would be extremely appropriate for the Salamanders list and would be keen to see it changed. There's precedent for SR varying in sublists with Ulthwe having SR5 rather than Biel-tann's 4.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Oh I see the Redeemer is 15cm range now? Didn't it use to be 30cm? Do other units use the flamestorm cannon with those stats?

It got corrected years ago and definitely needs to be 15cm. It's a close range flame weapon - in 40k it fires a flame template next to the gun. It's a different sort of weapon to the Inferno Cannon on the Hellhound which lobs a goat of flame some distance and so has 30cm.

The Redeemer is used in multiple lists with those stats. Flamestorm Cannons are also on Siege Dreadnoughts in other lists.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Redeemer...pretty much an air assault tank with its main weapons being 15cm range, can't see it getting to fire much in a game, or for that matter getitng choosen over a regular land raider. Certainly I can see no reason if not air inserting... If the redeemer is stuck at 15cm range might be quietly dropped, or left in but with no expectation people would want to take it

What?!? Noooo!!! Don't you dare drop it. The Land Raider Redeemer is my favourite thing in the list. It's a great tank as is and doesn't need to be air assaulted to be used at all. If the enemy deploy a garrison close to the centre of the table or send a formation forward during turn 1 Redeemers could double forward and toast them, but even if they have to march turn 1 to get into a good position for turn 2 they would still be worth it. 8 x AP3+ ignore cover and a 3+ ignore cover FF is very powerful, plus with their frag grenade launchers they have better CC than a normal Land Raider (5+ rather than 6+).

I used five Land Raider Redeemers on the ground in my last Salamander game, using the following list:

Term, 4 LR Redeemer, Librarian 700
Land Speeders 200
Assault, Redeemer 225
Scouts 150
Scouts 150
Scouts 150
Thunderbolts 175
Pred Annihilators, Hunter 325
Dev + Sal Dev, Las Razorback 375
Pred Annihilators, Hunter 325
Vindicator 225
11 activations, 3k

The Deathstar formation is nasty with 16 x AP 3/4+ ignore cover shots and 8 x FF 3+ ignore cover attacks. It was a fun list and I want to try it again some time :) It did well and I won the game, despite going up against the tough match up of a Titan Legion. Maybe Redeemers don't suit your playstyle or something Chris but I'm definitely happy with them at their current stats and using them a lot - leave them as is please!

Quote:
testing different combinations (some like the terminators in LRs like GlynG suggested). Smart opponents avoid these "death stars" like they do against AMTL but they slowly bleed them dry in the closing activations of the turns. Typically I found the salamanders tough kill but they didn't generate the firepower at either close or at range to make up for the loss in activation which SM typically depend on.

They can double 50cm and still put out a torrent of fire, so should be hard for enemies to avoid for long. If you're having problems with higher activation enemies avoiding you and pouncing late turn after you've run out of activations, then why not run a fairly high activation army yourself? There are loads of viable Salamanders lists with 12 activations or more.

I agree with your list of other changes, with the exception of 'Hunter at 50?'. Hunters cost 75 and shouldn't be cheaper here. Nor should Salamanders have cheaper than normal characters. I approve of Thunderhawks being 250 too, wouldn't want to see them go down.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Salamanders
PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 1:15 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:48 pm
Posts: 681
Location: Australia
GlynG wrote:
Why do you have the notion that Salamanders are necessarily a low activation army Chris? It's not the case. If you were to take loads of upgrades all over the place then maybe, but if you use them in moderation then there are loads of possible Salamanders lists with 12 or more activations at 3k.


To make use of "salamander" units you are likely to have less activations, your own list above, whilst high on activations, makes use of 875pts of restricted units to pad out your actications (scouts x3, assault & speeders) then on that you have thunderbolts. Nothing wrong with that, RAW, but I'd argue that is not in line with the list intent/theme.

GlynG wrote:
Given that Salamanders have distinctly slower reaction speeds that other SMs (they have initiative 3 in 40k rather than 4, which makes a significant difference in combat with many others striking before they can) maybe the list should have strategy rating 4 to represent this in epic?

I'm not claiming Salamanders are less strategic, but that their slow reactions mean in practice they are a lot slower to implement their plans and to react to changing circumstances on the battlefield than other SMs.


GlynG, Mate I think you making a bit much out of their slower reaction speeds. They were only I3 in one version of the salamanders list, and that got removed from 5th ed onwards. At the individual level, a salamander is still more than capable against standard humans and other faster foes.

At a tactical and operational level, I've read or seen no fluff or reasoning that suggest they are any slower to deploy or react than other SM elm (happy to be proven otherwise). In fact their reliance on superior technology and lower numbers would likely grant them an advantage in this regard.

Quote:
I think SR4 would be extremely appropriate for the Salamanders list and would be keen to see it changed. There's precedent for SR varying in sublists with Ulthwe having SR5 rather than Biel-tann's 4.

Unless someone provides strong supporting evidence other than a slightly slower than normal SM physical reaction speed (hahah GW fluff..) to support this, I strongly disagree.


Quote:
What?!? Noooo!!! Don't you dare drop it. The Land Raider Redeemer is my favourite thing in the list. It's a great tank as is and doesn't need to be air assaulted to be used at all.


Agreed, the vehicle is one of the more characterful additions to the list, more so that the helios. It is however rather situational in its effectiveness. Against an slow moving inf heavy opponent this tank is quite good. Against Tank/Titan heavy lists it is somewhat disadvantaged.

In my experience it works well in tactical and vindicator formations, pairing it with longer range units like devastators, standard landraiders etc causes a mobility/firepower mismatch that impacts on their effectiveness.

Short of dropping it in via landing craft (which incurs a huge price rise?), I ran them with vindicators. Often taking a double to get within 15cm for a bunch of AP shots hitting on 4s and then retain with an assault element to draw on their good supporting fire. Similar to BA Baal preadators, just they are better at this due to their increased speed.

Don't see a need to change the unit, just their availablity to a tactical formation should be improved (so you can take 3 without affecting the ability to take a hunter for example)

Quote:
The Deathstar formation is nasty with 16 x AP 3/4+ ignore cover shots and 8 x FF 3+ ignore cover attacks. It was a fun list and I want to try it again some time :) It did well and I won the game, despite going up against the tough match up of a Titan Legion. Maybe Redeemers don't suit your playstyle or something Chris but I'm definitely happy with them at their current stats and using them a lot - leave them as is please!

They can double 50cm and still put out a torrent of fire, so should be hard for enemies to avoid for long. If you're having problems with higher activation enemies avoiding you and pouncing late turn after you've run out of activations, then why not run a fairly high activation army yourself? There are loads of viable Salamanders lists with 12 activations or more.


Sure, it CAN be nasty, and I did this once or twice to Sethanon and Cal, but even at a double, its effective threat range is really only 65-70cm if you include 5cm dismount for the terminators. On the other hand a warlord/reaver titan - at similar points - can generate a similar number of shots, significantly better AT/MW firepower, as many FF attacks, is more resilient generally to BM and fire, and has a threat range of 90cm+ generally.

So I'm not saying its a crap formation, its not, but it lacks the flexibility that other expensive formations have. The quality players in my gaming group very quickly identified the threat of these units within 15-30cm and target them from a distance, avoid them or ZOC screen them with something cheap. In a 3k game this sort of units is going to either drastically decrease activation count or require you to pad out the list with stuff like scouts, assaults and tbolts (all of which aren't really characterful for a salamanders list)


Quote:
I agree with your list of other changes, with the exception of 'Hunter at 50?'. Hunters cost 75 and shouldn't be cheaper here. Nor should Salamanders have cheaper than normal characters. I approve of Thunderhawks being 250 too, wouldn't want to see them go down.


Hunters remain at 75pts - agreed

Characters as standard SM lists, ie 50/100pts - agreed

Thunderhawks - don't see how salamanders need to pay a 25% points increase over other lists, even SW only pay 25pt extra and their landing craft the same cost? I guess each group will have its own meta but the thunderhawk air assaults haven't proven to be OTT in our group. We all typically run a decent AA capability due to vampires, ork landers etc. For my money the most effective air drop unit will be the Devs + salamanders Devs upgrade + librarian and maybe a MM dread. Including the thunderhawk thats 700pts! And what can it do: Air assault its generating 2x FF4, 4xFF3, 2x FF4 MW and 1x FF3 MW + dread (CC4+CC4MW or a FF4 MW) for and avg of (3.67 normal hits and 2.17 MW hits) . Landing & shooting its generating 4x AP4, 1x AP/AT4, 8x AP5/AT6, 5x MW5. (avg of 5.17 AP hits and 1.66 MW hits against an inf target, 1.83 AT hits and 1.66 MW hits against AV targets, and somewhere in between against a mixed force)

Similarly a Codex marine thunderhawk with terminators and chaplain can generate (3.67 normal hits and 3.33MW hits in an air assault) and comes in at 600pts Vs 700pts. It is also more likely to save return attacks and win the assault due to inspiring and lower casualties.
Shooting it generates (5.17 AP hits against all inf or 3.17 AT hits against all AV) so similar but doesn't generate MW shots but more effective over ranges of 15cm.

This is turning into a bit of a rant, but I'm not sure why the salamanders units - once all the upgrades are costed in - need to be punished in the thunderhawk or landing craft cost (+50/+75!pts). Either roll the cost into the upgrades themselves, since they seem to be the issue, or consider that other marine lists can generate similar effects through other mechanisms for cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Salamanders
PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 5:06 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
GlynG wrote:
Why do you have the notion that Salamanders are necessarily a low activation army Chris? It's not the case. If you were to take loads of upgrades all over the place then maybe, but if you use them in moderation then there are loads of possible Salamanders lists with 12 or more activations at 3k.


Yes - but they aren't very good. The fixed transport (no extra razorback for them) and lack of fast attack, scouts & allies (far more than a third normally), means the lists are worse. The core difference for the salamanders is battle company organisation and gear. The weapons lend themselves to being a good air assault list, but the marines already have that. The other bit is the tech, which lends itself to mech forces, hence trying to do a marine mech force with a salamander flavour.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I'm not claiming Salamanders are less strategic, but that their slow reactions mean in practice they are a lot slower to implement their plans and to react to changing circumstances on the battlefield than other SMs.

Surely strategy rating isn't just pure strategic ability but is a figure covering a range of factors? Some of the better Imperial Guard generals might well be equally good at strategy for their army as a SM commander, but they and their armies have much slower reactions and communications so SR 2 is still appropriate.

I think SR4 would be extremely appropriate for the Salamanders list and would be keen to see it changed. There's precedent for SR varying in sublists with Ulthwe having SR5 rather than Biel-tann's 4.


I have always seen SR as a function of planing, logs and mobility. So Siegers get to be 1, Guard 2, Eldar 4 and Eldar with even more ability to see into the future, 5. Marines are able to rapidly plan and execute with enough mobile logs to conduct whatever op. You could say because of all the gear on the ground they get to be slower, though no other marine list has that (including the tank one). You would then need to work out the effect of the nerf on the list. Resilient marine mech formations lead to lower activations, which make not acting first when you need to quite devastating. So you can do it, but it would lead to an interminable development process where you had to go over so many price drops and other changes and then do a lot more testing than is currently possible in the current set up for Epic. Given all that, is there an easier way of doing things?

Quote:
Don't you dare drop it. The Land Raider Redeemer is my favourite thing in the list. It's a great tank as is and doesn't need to be air assaulted to be used at all. If the enemy deploy a garrison close to the centre of the table or send a formation forward during turn 1 Redeemers could double forward and toast them, but even if they have to march turn 1 to get into a good position for turn 2 they would still be worth it. 8 x AP3+ ignore cover and a 3+ ignore cover FF is very powerful


I didn't mean drop it... I meant I wouldn't bother taking it :) I can see far more use for shooting at 45 AT than I can 15 AP, but that is just me :) I do recognise though others think and play very differently!

Have you been using it as a formation of 4 tanks? Was never the intention, simply because all I could imagine was air assaults with it...


Quote:
Land Speeders 200
Assault, Redeemer 225
Scouts 150
Scouts 150
Scouts 150
Thunderbolts 175


Wonder why the thunderbolts are 175? I suspect that was a time when that was being generally tested?

Assuming tbolts for 150, you managed to spend 25 points too many from the restricted list... Only means dropping one formation though.

Quote:
I agree with your list of other changes, with the exception of 'Hunter at 50?'. Hunters cost 75 and shouldn't be cheaper here. Nor should Salamanders have cheaper than normal characters. I approve of Thunderhawks being 250 too, wouldn't want to see them go down.


I would be curious to see what cheaper hunters did to peoples list builds. Certainly this is a hard list to get 2 tbolt formations in. Tis merely a thought...

The cheaper captains is to get a cheap leader in the list as I never managed to get to an assault without bm's from previous turns.The alternative always seemed to be spamming chaplains. Another way of presenting it could be a techmarine/medic character with leader and an inv. save for 25.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Salamanders
PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 5:11 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
GlynG wrote:
Term, 4 LR Redeemer, Librarian 700


I would still go for a chaplain...

With such a formation surely you would want a lander in there as well...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Salamanders
PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 5:20 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:48 pm
Posts: 681
Location: Australia
Yeah I'd agree but then that will cost you 425! But then without it, a few AT shots and your 700pt formation is now walking... Unless it was a deathstrike :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Salamanders
PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 5:40 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Quote:
This is turning into a bit of a rant, but I'm not sure why the salamanders units - once all the upgrades are costed in - need to be punished in the thunderhawk or landing craft cost (+50/+75!pts). Either roll the cost into the upgrades themselves, since they seem to be the issue, or consider that other marine lists can generate similar effects through other mechanisms for cheaper.



We did discuss doing it that way round, but that makes things dependant on air assault to make their points back. Likewise we considered axing it entirely, but that made things too 1 dimensional. So it ended up at that premium so it could be the supporting effect intended. Note the high lander cost I think is because at the time the lander cost was being tested at a higher level? Otherwise it would be 50 points more than a standard marine list.

The other option was sticking it in the restricted bit, but that just bent the list out of shape too much.

There could be a more radical way of doing a mech list, just couldn't think of it in a way that resembled marine organisation as I understand it!

If the price was the standard marine price, I would just make a more effective air assault list than the marines currently are. Wouldn't you?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Salamanders
PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 7:53 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5356
Location: Bristol
The_Real_Chris wrote:
GlynG wrote:
Term, 4 LR Redeemer, Librarian 700


I would still go for a chaplain...

With such a formation surely you would want a lander in there as well...

Oops, yes, so did I in the end too (had it as Librarian when I wrote the list but changed to a Chaplain last minute).

Nah to the Lander - I'd much rather have more models on the ground. Again likely a preferred playstyle variation.

Thunderbolts are now 175 points generally for all Space Marine lists, they have been since 2012.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
If the price was the standard marine price, I would just make a more effective air assault list than the marines currently are. Wouldn't you?

That would be tempting yes. The list and that army build needs to have downsides compared to the Codex list.

What were your impressions of Salamanders drop lists though? Aren't they essentially just a more effective drop list than normal? (and with no cost increase for the spaceship or anything to compensate).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Salamanders
PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:23 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:48 pm
Posts: 681
Location: Australia
So what would take you take that would make this list (25%?) better at air assault over standard marine options? What do salamanders tacticals/devs etc do that makes aerial delivery much better?
- I see salamanders typically being used as a few mech heavy with formations, with cheap formations like scouts etc to pad out the activation count. OR players accept a low activation count and rely on armour/FF to get them through.

I'll admit, I've rarely taken air asault salamanders because the increased cost puts me off, and when I have they have met with unfortunate thunderhawk critical results (note our meta has a fair amount of AA or air cover).

I've tested drop pod heavy forces a few times, they do a fair bit of damage on the turn they drop but the 15cm move is pretty limiting afterwards, for my mind, this would be even worse for salamanders due to limiting range? This was the experience with space wolves who similarly have the ability to drop larger formations that excel at assaults/FF but can be limited in ranged shooting.

By way of comparison, Dark angels tacticals used to be 30cm AP4/AT4 slow fire, did their testing ever suggest plasma cannon heavy air assaults to be too OTT?

Quote:
That would be tempting yes. The list and that army build needs to have downsides compared to the Codex list.


Just curious as to what more downsides this list needs? Whilst characterful, I feel its already limited by the restrictions on fast attack, the less effective terminators. On top of that you want to drop is SR to 4 and up the cost of space craft, to balance a few 15cm MW5+ attacks that regular marines can generate easily on much faster moving skimmers... It just doesn't seem needed IMHO but again that may be down to different meta and experience.

In our games with salamanders over the last 2 years, they have done ok with orks, the high amount of ignore cover flamers being effective against dug in orks and the like. Against IG results have been mixed, the need to close right in has resulted in high casualties. Against Eldar I've really struggled due to their high mobility, against eldar I've felt the need to take thunderhawks etc, but good eldar AA and fighters has limited the thunderhawks.

To me the salamanders should be strong at air assault inf formations and close range mech combat but limited by access to fast attack/numbers of activations. I think the low activation count, limited numbers should be the weakness and somewhat is already due to list design and upgrades. How about limiting scouts as well? -Salamander fluff suggests a slow recruitment process and an under strength scout company?

AC cost and limitations will probably be something GlynG and I will agree to disagree on for a while, what do you want testing to focus on TRC?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Salamanders
PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 12:49 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8709
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
In my first Tournament i used a complete air assault Salamanders list. Everything in Drop Pods, one Thunderhawk and one Landing Craft. Is wiped the floor with my opponent in two games and got my ass handed in return in two other games.

Oh as a reason why i suggested including the Storm Talon and Storm Eagle. They idea was that they should replace the Thunderbolt and Marauder respectively.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Salamanders
PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 4:36 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9129
Location: Manalapan, FL
Storm Eagle is more of a light weight assault transport than a bomber to enable smaller more targeted drops without going full on with a tbrick. I thought we're not trying to do the air assault list of doom here?

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Salamanders
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 10:01 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:32 pm
Posts: 436
Random think I thunk, on the topic if Salamanders being a 'slow to react' army.

At the start of the game roll 1d6 for each formation in your army, on the roll of a 1 the formation starts with a single blast marker.

They're still as strategically and logistically adept as an SM should be, they're just take a little bit longer to get into the swing of things.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Salamanders
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 10:35 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6329
Location: Leicester UK
Scutarii wrote:
Random think I thunk, on the topic if Salamanders being a 'slow to react' army.


but..... they aren't..... as ortron said, that fluff existed for one version of the rules and was retconned subsequently
Quote:
At the start of the game roll 1d6 for each formation in your army, on the roll of a 1 the formation starts with a single blast marker.

They're still as strategically and logistically adept as an SM should be, they're just take a little bit longer to get into the swing of things.


if we wanted to model their lower initiative, I think formations running the risk of starting with a blast marker is a rather excessive way to do it, even siege regiments of the imperial guard, the lowest of the low, don't run the risk of such a handicap :D

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 174 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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