With the Trial thread closed, I couldn't work out where to post feedback on the latest(?) trial changes.

Here's a Linky to a battle report with the changes being tested.
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=21740

Overall, I like them, as it lets me play Marines how I think they should be played. I played another game with the trial rules against an ork force over the weekend, and scraped a victory. If you'd like some (hazily-remembered) specifics, let me know and I'll see what I can remember.

On an unrelated note, has the Thunderhawk ever been tested with a Turbolaser destructor? It's an option on the FW model, and the current 40k standard loadout. It'd be a good way of introducing a couple of MW attacks into the Astartes list without resorting to Warhounds, in my opinion.

Despite the appearances of the linked game, I don't really like using Titan and Navy allies with my Marines, and would prefer more options for dealing with superheavies drawn from the Astartes ranks.

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

Please let's not add new units to the core Codex list. That's what varient lists are for. Turbolaser Destructors aren't MW anyway, they're 4x AP5+/AT3+.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

The black Templars list has the turbolaser armed thunderhawk.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Meh. Variant lists leave me cold.
In my perfect, self-centred little world, the Thunderhawk would be Turbolaser Destructor as standard, and the battlecannon would be a forgotten relic of the bad old days.


Mistake cheerfully withdrawn. Either way, it'd help me deal with War Engines without having to rely on allied Titans.

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

If you want to pay 300 points per thunderhawk, go nuts :p

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Actually Double-barelled Turbo-laser Destcructors as a Titan can be armed with has 4 x AP5+/AT3+.
The Thunderhawk's Turbo-laser Destructor has only a single barrel so 2 x AP5+/AT3+.

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

I feel like being facetious...double barreled usually adds +1 to both AP and AT right? So a single barreled TLD would be 4xAP6/AT4 right?

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army

I feel like being facetious...double barreled usually adds +1 to both AP and AT right? So a single barreled TLD would be 4xAP6/AT4 right?

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army

Twin-linked adds +1 to AP and AT.
Double-barelled looks the same but actually doubles the numbers of shots.

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

*Muses*
Y'know, these simple definitions would be fantastic to have collected somewhere.

Coming back to the Trial changes in effect in this game (viz:
1) Land Raiders 325 point per formation/75 point upgrades(no 85 point add-ons)
2) Tacticals 275 per formation. Allow LR upgrade
3) Predators 250 per formation/FF3+ for Destructor
4) Thunderbolts 175 per squadron

They all seemed to work very smoothly. I habitually take two or three Tactical formations, each with a Captain, so the -25pt change saved me 75pts overall. E&C suggested Captains be reduced to a 25pt upgrade in order to make them more attractive compared to the other Leaders, a suggestion I like.

However, I'd be wary about applying both changes (i.e. -25pt Tacs and -25pt Captains) without further playtesting. Tactical marines are really solid, in my opinion, but I understand that plenty of more experienced folks prefer the more specialised groups. Thoughts?

My little hobby horse of Veterans raised its head, but the ability to take Land Raider in Tactical Formations is a nice way to represent it without additional rules, so consider me placated

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

Posting the batrep in the Batrep section is fine Apologist and if folks want to put a link post in the Adeptus section I'm happy with that too.
I'm not in any hurry to adjust the characters. While it could work, I think there isn't a super need for it as the Captain does bring a specialty that can be quite useful and seems under used by many.

Thanks for the feedback and the batrep

BTW MoK, was your "double-barrelled" post meant to be a double post? Pure comedy genius at work

I played a really close and enjoyable 4500pt game with Codex Astartes vs a modified ETC last night. As I mention in there, due to the (apparently) unusual nature of the lists and the tweaks to the ETC list used, it may or may not be useful.

Clicky link

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

Hey Gang,

I have had five games with the new changes at 4000 points. My list has been roughly the same at each occassion, base list looks like:

Reaver Titan
Warhound Pack
Land Raiders
Land Raiders
Land Raiders
Tactical Det
+Sup Comd
+ 2 x RB
+ 2 x Vindicators
+ Hunter
Tactical Det
+ Character
Dev Det
+Character
+Dreads
+Hunter
Land Speeders
Whirlwinds
+ Hunter

I find the changes are great, being able to take the armour at a reasonable cost has changed the way I structure the army. I have taken preds at the new cost and again nil issue with them. I have taken the TB at 175 and am happy with that as a choice. I still support the armour concept that is in variant list allowing Tacs to take preds as an option.

Results for games for far are 4:1 victories to Marines. I have been playing guard each time. All of the games have gone to four turns with two games being decided by points. If Jim has some time up his sleave I will get him to post his observations. I know the large numbers of LR caused him comcern

Cheers
Aaron