New version attached, following previous conversations.
| Attachments: |
Blood Angels.pdf [346.22 KiB]
Downloaded 1307 times |
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Blood Angels v2.11 http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=19815 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:14 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Blood Angels v2.11 | ||
New version attached, following previous conversations.
|
|||
| Author: | nealhunt [ Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blood Angels v2.10 |
E&C: Have you found that larger SM formations have the punch to make up for the reduced number of activations overall? Are you using Stormravens and, if so, how? I spent a good portion of the weekend repairing broken minis and building a few odds-and-ends units I needed to fill in holes in army lists. To do that, I had to go through and write up some sample forces so I had a good idea of what I needed to add to make the unit selection options flexible. After drafting up a bunch of theoretical formations I'm still struggling to see how I would incorporate Stormravens. A fast assault-oriented formation with 2-3 shooting units to prep/FF is one of my favorite kinds of formations. 3 Stormravens + 6 Assault Marines does that and can Planetfall. But at 475 points it better pack a pretty hefty wollop. The dreadnought transport capacity doesn't seem to be worth it. It's 150 points to add a Stormraven and dreadnought. They have all the normal issues with keeping troops mounted. The Stormraven's armor isn't good enough to warrant that risk. Also, if they are loaded, the first AT kill will be the transport, so if the Dread survives, the formation is reduced to 15cm move. In the end, I am making comparisons like... Tacs + 3 Dreads - I can put them in Stormravens or I can put them in a Landing Craft. Stormravens are cheaper at 225 versus 350 and pack more ranged firepower. The LC has the option to Planetfall or deploy as aircraft. In a Planetfall/assault scenario the LC is tougher and has better assault ability but is immobile, so the Stormravens are strategically superior. However, an aircraft landing is seriously better in all ways - choice of targets, better LC assault ability, no need to buy a spacecraft. The LC can carry the free Rhinos so the Dreads have some AV "meat shield" units and if it were strategically advantageous (e.g. a Turn 3 objective grab to win the game), the Tacs could run off and leave the dreads. The LC also provides a second, very tough activation once the initial assault is over. I think the LC is worth the point cost difference any time. Or... Tac formation + Razorback + Stormraven and Dread versus Tacs + Razorback + Assault and Predator. Same price. Firepower and assault ability are comparable. However, the Assault/Pred is higher unit count with the same armor values, so they are better defensively. The formation can lose an extra AV and not get bogged down. There are some situations where the Stormraven are a little better but for overall utility, I'm going for the Assault/Pred combo. == I think part of it is not the Stormraven, but the Dreadnoughts (which are included in both those examples). They are definitely better than the codex versions. They can crush something in a high-impact deepstrike situation. However, past that they aren't that great compared to the stock dreads. I don't think they are worth 75 points. As an example, if you're going to use them in an LC deepstrike like the above example, which would you rather have for overall performance, Dreads or Preds? Dreads would be better in the initial assault, but after that the Preds are going to be far more utilitarian. They only seem to be worth it in a Thawk assault. Maybe this is one of those "priced for optimal use" situations but that would be a shame since one hope for Stormravens is to help integrate Dreads into mainstream SM use. |
|
| Author: | Ginger [ Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blood Angels v2.10 |
Reading Neal's reply made me look at the Storm Raven stats, and I got confused by the brackets (or lack thereof). Did you mean to say:-
If so it seems you are providing a way to transport Dreadnoughts in the formation 'for free'? Perhaps the following wording might make that clearer:-
Ok, So if I got the above correct this provides the following:- 600 = Tacs + 1xDread + 3xSRaven (use the tacs as the meatshield to protect the armour?!) 550 = Devs + 2xDred + 2xSRaven (very shooty, fast formation to fire and support) 300 = Scouts + 2xSRaven (More expensive and only slightly better than scouts + Razorbacks) Hmmm Well I think I see where you are going with this; providing the capability to planetfall into the enemy rear, and then have residual mobility and resilience to take and hold something, or with the scouts to provide a hard hitting screen. However, all those additional 75pts units quickly add up, and without RA, I suspect they will be relatively fragile. I have a horrible feeling that a THawk for 200pts is likely to be better value than three SRavens because of the extra activation and greater durability though it obviously does not have quite the same firepower. Furthermore, StormRavens are apparently intended to provide a shooting / assault capability. Good mobility, firepower and reasonable resilience etc. But this will mean putting your BTS into harms way - and I doubt that it will usually survive the experience  considering the options:-Tacticals Most people using a 'Tactical BTS' keep it at the rear both to guard the Blitz and to provide a mobile reserve - almost the exact opposite of the apparent roles implied - or have I missed someting?? Devastators Possibly the best match using 2x SRavens for a fast, hard-hitting support formation at 400 points. But quite pricey Scouts A hard hitting screen for 300 points, but somewhat less resilient than Landspeeders, and 100pts more . . . Terminators So you trade Land Raider resilience and slower movement for weaker armour and planet-falling - on a 700pts formation which is inevitably going to be the BTS - are you kidding??? |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blood Angels v2.10 |
nealhunt wrote: E&C: Have you found that larger SM formations have the punch to make up for the reduced number of activations overall? From my limited playtests so far, I can't yet make a call; I've been focusing on other projects and mainly relying on feedback to date. I should be able to get in some heavy testing after the new year though. Quote: Are you using Stormravens and, if so, how? Not yet, only just started converting and painting up my first few. Quote: I think part of it is not the Stormraven, but the Dreadnoughts (which are included in both those examples). They are definitely better than the codex versions. They can crush something in a high-impact deepstrike situation. However, past that they aren't that great compared to the stock dreads. I don't think they are worth 75 points. It does beg the old question as to whether the standard Dreadnought is worth 50pts, I guess. :-) Can we put the standard Dreads back to 4+ armour save and drop their cost to 25pts, and charge 50pts for these?  Quote: They only seem to be worth it in a Thawk assault. Maybe this is one of those "priced for optimal use" situations but that would be a shame since one hope for Stormravens is to help integrate Dreads into mainstream SM use. Perhaps the Stormraven is still a little under-statted? I was a little conservative in statting it up for Epic. In 40k, it has better armour (All round) than a Dreadnought or a Predator, plus the standard Thunderhawk special rule of ignoring the special effects of Melta type weapons, so an upgrade Armour 3+ or 5+RA wouldn't seem to be unjustified. The Missiles are a bit under-statted in Epic too, probably being deserving of AT3+, or even MW5+ (They are Armour Penetration "1" in 40k, which generally translates to MW status in Epic). Additionally, because the Stormraven is only supposed to carry 4 missiles, instead of having a single missile shot per turn, they could be treated more like a Vulture Gunship, and have "4x AT3+ One Shot" missiles, or "2x AT2+ one shot" missile salvos (Each shot representing 2 missiles). Maybe an armour upgrade and a missile upgrade would make it worthwhile for 75pts? |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blood Angels v2.10 |
Ginger wrote: Reading Neal's reply made me look at the Storm Raven stats, and I got confused by the brackets (or lack thereof). Did you mean to say:-
If so it seems you are providing a way to transport Dreadnoughts in the formation 'for free'? Perhaps the following wording might make that clearer:-
That seems to be a better way of writing it. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blood Angels v2.10 |
Evil and Chaos wrote: Maybe an armour upgrade and a missile upgrade would make it worthwhile for 75pts? Possibly. I think the issue you're going to run into is total formation cost, but it's worth trying. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blood Angels v2.11 |
Ok, have pushed a quick update to v2.11 to upgrade the Stormraven and clarify its transport capacity wording... I think it looks pretty good now. |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blood Angels v2.11 |
Well the Storm Raven has the option to add two Hurricane Bolter sponsons which would make it very firefighty in Epic. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blood Angels v2.11 |
As an optional upgrade in 40k, it's best avoided, IMO. |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blood Angels v2.11 |
But should be kept in mind that this is an option if the Storm Raven isn't worth his points. |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Tue Dec 07, 2010 9:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blood Angels v2.11 |
Is the 15cm range on the Stormraven's Twin Assault Cannon because of it's AA shot? |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blood Angels v2.11 |
Yep. Reckon it should lose AA and just have its normal range? |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blood Angels v2.11 |
I guess this would be better as it isn't an aircraft (in Epic). |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blood Angels v2.11 |
Hmmm for some reason I had the impression that it was also used for fighter duties (Thus the AA shot), but reading the background turns up no references to air-to-air combat. I'll remove the AA shot immediately. EDIT : Done. |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blood Angels v2.11 |
Well by fluff it should be an aircraft. But as Epic doesn't allow for non-WE as independent transports.... |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|