Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

[Old] Raven Guard 2014-12-08
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=28668		 Page 1 of 5
Author:  Dave [ Mon Dec 08, 2014 7:28 pm ]
Post subject:  [Old] Raven Guard 2014-12-08
So there was a difference between the Raven Guard list posted on the forum and the one that was in the Army List Compendium. After talking to both Dobbsy and Neal I couldn't figure out why the changes in the ALC were introduced. Given that, and the fact Neal said 1.2 was the last he worked on that's what I'm going to run with.

The list attached is effectively a 1.2.1. I carried it over as-is with these changes:

  • I dropped the re-roll of scatter for Planetfall (we never used it and when you're rolling scatter 20+ times it can also slow things down when you stop to think if you want to re-roll).
  • I added the SM changes Dobbsy just gave to the ERC (Typhoon cost, Sniper upgrade, Transport SR addtions) and what has been introduced over the past few years (Tac/TBolt prices)
  • I renamed the Commandos to Vanguard Veterans

Other than those, the list should be what it was in 1.2. I was hoping to get a better response for those looking to get it approved. If no one's willing to test it we'll fall back to community consensus, which is always fun around here (8 people, 18 opinions), with more weight be given to anyone who puts up reports.

In terms of a time-frame, I figure: 4 months to gets some games in with this list, change stuff as needed, 4 months to test those, fine-tune if needed, 4 months to get the reports for approval. It be great if we could make this a NetEA/EUK list, but given that it's a variant I'm sure it's not high on the EUK radar.

Attachments:
netea-space-marine-raven-guard-2014-12-08.pdf [103.03 KiB]
Downloaded 1138 times
Author:  Dobbsy [ Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2014-12-08
Dave, I've updated the link in Index Astartes to show this thread and locked the old one. Let me know if you'd prefer that one left unlocked though.
Author:  Dave [ Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2014-12-08
You can leave it unlocked.
Author:  robbypk [ Tue Dec 09, 2014 4:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2014-12-08
I have a Raven Guard army that I play fairly regularly, and I will volunteer to play with this list as much as I can and report on what I think works/doesn't work.

But if I may 'jump the gun,' there are a few things I'd right away like to change about the list.
(This is only a Wish List, I will NOT be making these changes to the list)

With no ranged weapons, Tactical Assault units have no offensive ability on their own at range, and very limited FF ability. With only 15cm movement that makes them very limited and predictable. Given that the fluff states that RG spend countless hours perfecting silent moving skills, I'd like too see them gain the 'infiltration' ability.

Vanguard Veterans (formerly Comandos) are supposed to be able to get behind enemy lines and hit really hard (hence the 'Scout' and 'Infiltrator' abilities) but often times the enemy has multiple units within range of each other to provide support fire, making a VV raid often a losing suicide mission if they close to use their 3+ CC stat. I'd like to see VV improve from 5+ FF to 4+ FF so they can be a little more selective in how they hit their target and avoid at least a little support fire. (I'd love to see 3+ FF, but would probably be too powerful.)
Author:  ortron [ Tue Dec 09, 2014 11:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2014-12-08
Cheers for the refresh of Neal's list.

Some questions and points:
Whats the intended design principle or "feel" of the list your aiming to achieve. I note you've got the comment "RG are highly mobile" but arguably that is most marines, with white scars at probably the end of the spectrum with blood angels next in line. Is this going to be the Landspeeder list, Marine air assault list, Scout list?
Is there intent to align this to any specific GW/FW literature on the RG?

As with the codex list I think the changes to Typhoon and Scout snipers will promote their use.

The total loss of the predator, vindicator and landraider in this list is a little strange and something I discussed with Neal a while ago. If the list is supposed to represent the RG fighting lightly, then how come we still have titans and hunters etc in support. Maybe down the track there can be consideration to add predator etc as upgrades to tacticals.

Ref Commandos, now vanguard vets. I know a lot of people on here cease to follow GW development of SM in 40k, but vanguard vets are your first company assault marine - in the majority of cases jump pack equippend and wielding power weapons, thunderhammers, lightning claws etc. Whilst sternguard vets are your first company "tacticals" using combi-weapons, specialist ammo and some heavy weapons etc.
The commandos/vanguard vets in this list are - like an assault marine mixed with a scout. If thats what you want cool, but probably best to call them something other than existing GW units that they're not - its sort of like calling a 6mm hunter a stalker/landraider.

If you wanted to look at putting space marine veterans in power armour, rather than terminator armour, into the list, then I'm pretty sure both veteran types have already been stated elsewhere by Black Legion and/or Jimmy Zimms, but I gathered from your PM you weren't keen on new units or special rules.
Author:  berzerkmonkey [ Tue Dec 09, 2014 12:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2014-12-08
Go by the HH term - Shadowmasters. There should be only one commando in the game - Ork Kommandos. My vote would be to drop the "Tactical Assault" formation entirely and change the "Vanguard Veterans" to "Shadowmasters" and give them Jump Packs, dropping the non-jump friendly upgrades.

Also, personally, going by the fluff, the RG should be heavily influenced by scouting and infiltrator tactics, and should reflect that in their list. Conversely, they should also be dissuaded from taking any sort of "frontal assault" units - dreads should be dropped from the list entirely. It's hard to be stealthy when you're a 12-foot walking, clanking tank-man. In addition, Hunters and Predators should not be a consideration either (or should be very expensive to reflect their lack of preference by the Chapter.)

Honestly, I'd also go as far as to drop Titan support as well, since, again, stealth. These guys are the SEAL Team Six of Space Marines, and they should reflect that - lots of Scout, Infiltration, and Jump Pack and less big stompy robots.
Author:  jimmyzimms [ Tue Dec 09, 2014 4:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2014-12-08
Lots of teleport too to represent the pre battle sneakiness
Author:  robbypk [ Thu Dec 11, 2014 4:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2014-12-08
Now that I've looked this list over and compared to the previous RG list....I have a few comments.

First off, I think that no one will ever use tactical assault units anymore.

Part of the fluff of RG is that there is not a lot of ranged firepower. This was reflected in the previous list by making tactical assault units cheaper than regular tactical units to reflect the lack of missile launchers, but also raising the cost of a tactical unit above that of a codex SM army. By keeping the cost of a tactical unit at 275, the only real difference I see between tactical unit and tactical assault is the missile launchers....and 50 points for 6 long-range shots is always worth it to me, even though it goes against the fluff. But by making them 300 points in the previous list...made me think twice.

Second, I am going to maintain that the Commando/Vanguard Veteran units should have FF of 4+, not 5+. Here is my reasoning:

Assault troops have CC 3+/FF5+ to reflect their chain swords and bolt pistols. (Remember that codex marines are armed with bolters and one missile launcher) The pistols can be used for FF, but obviously they are going to be more ferocious and do more damage in close with those chain swords...so assault troopers are slightly better in CC and slightly worse in FF than standard SM. Also, the common tactic of delivering assault troops to the battle via Thunderhawks means that they can virtually always make it into bas-to-base with their opponent.

The new list created by Dave only has Vanguard Veterans armed with bolt pistols, but that then does not explain their CC3+. The previous RG list had them armed with bolters and chainswords. (I am going to assume that this was an error by Dave)

The chain swords would allow Vanguard Veterans to be just as dangerous as assault troops in close combat (justifying CC value of 3+) but by also being armed with bolters, they would still be just as dangerous as codex marines in fire fight (which is why I propose improving FF to 4+) One could also imagine Vanguard Veterans to be the ultra-elite of the RG army, and thus would use tactics and carry the necessary short-range weaponry to be equally dangerous whether at CC or FF range.

To offset this increased ability/value of Vanguard Veterans, I might even suggest increasing the cost of terminators. RG fluff states that terminator armor is even more rare in the RG army than codex SM, yet the cost to take terminators is unchanged, and RG terminators have the ability to drop into battle via drop pods, eliminating the danger of having blast markers when they come in.
Author:  Dave [ Thu Dec 11, 2014 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2014-12-08
robbypk wrote:
Part of the fluff of RG is that there is not a lot of ranged firepower. This was reflected in the previous list by making tactical assault units cheaper than regular tactical units to reflect the lack of missile launchers, but also raising the cost of a tactical unit above that of a codex SM army. By keeping the cost of a tactical unit at 275, the only real difference I see between tactical unit and tactical assault is the missile launchers....and 50 points for 6 long-range shots is always worth it to me, even though it goes against the fluff. But by making them 300 points in the previous list...made me think twice.


The cost reduction from the Codex list does mess with them inernal to this list, ya. I don't know if 200 would be too cheap for them though. We could test and see, and if so bump the Tacticals back to 300.

Code:
Second, I am going to maintain that the Commando/Vanguard Veteran units should have FF of 4+, not 5+. Here is my reasoning:


Vanguard Vets are armed with Bolt Pistols in the fluff, same as Assault Marines. I think FF4+ for them would be a stretch, considering everything else armed with them is FF5+. Different CC options (2@4+,1@3+ MW) would probably be a better way to make them stand out above assault marines.

What you're looking for seems like it would be a better fit for Sternguard vets (A4+, CC3+, FF4+, armed with a heavy bolter or missile launcher).

Quote:
The new list created by Dave only has Vanguard Veterans armed with bolt pistols, but that then does not explain their CC3+. The previous RG list had them armed with bolters and chainswords. (I am going to assume that this was an error by Dave)


Chainswords (and all Assault Weapons that don't have a special rule attached to them) have been removed from all the approved lists because they are superfluous from a rules stand point. This isn't something new, it's been that way for two years.
Author:  pati [ Fri Dec 12, 2014 8:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2014-12-08
How about CC/FF reflecting the skills of the user of the specific weapon, not just the capabilities of the weapon itself? :)
Author:  robbypk [ Mon Dec 15, 2014 3:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2014-12-08
Dave, I don't think I inderstand what you mean by suggesting CC 2@4+, 1@3+ MW.

Please explain?
Author:  Dave [ Mon Dec 15, 2014 3:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2014-12-08
Two attacks at 4+, or one at 3+ that's MW.
Author:  robbypk [ Mon Dec 15, 2014 4:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2014-12-08
I think that would be an EXCELLENT AND AWESOME option, and I would applaud it. I can tell you right now that I have tended to avoid taking commandos/vanguard veterans because they were no more effective and less mobile than assault troops.....and assault troops are cheaper.

Also, I believe that in Neal's list scout-snipers could planetfall using land speeder transports, but I don't think that is an option now.

Intentional?
Author:  Dave [ Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2014-12-08
They never had planetfall. Scouts don't have helmets and can't hold their breath that long.
Author:  Dobbsy [ Mon Dec 15, 2014 6:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Raven Guard 2014-12-08
Dave wrote:
They never had planetfall. Scouts don't have helmets and can't hold their breath that long.

:D Gold!
Page 1 of 5 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/