HERE is a preview of V1.16.

Changes I intend to implement for V1.16 (and have included in this preview):

- DK Thudd Guns go up to 200pts per formation of 4.
- Artillery Company made a support formation
- Entrenchments made compulsory for all artillery formations.
- Leman Russ Vanquisher gains an Autocannon for +5pts
- Reduce Hellhounds to 125pts


So, comments, critiques and calumnies please, this list is due to be finished by December 31st.  

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

To quote myselfe:



And to quote your answere to this   :


So will you use the names stated in the Vraks books or stay with those in your current army list?

Anf for other naming conventions:
Hellhound Squadon is called a Hellstorm Squadron in Apocalypse. In Codex Imperial Guard it's called a Assault Tank Squadron (literal translation as i only have the German Codex).

Heavy Tank Platoon should be Heavy Tank Squadron because this are Vehicles not Infantry.

Else i have no complaints  

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

I'll go with the ones from the Vraks book.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Great
Now i only have to get 8 boxes of Baran Infantry for the DeathKorps (as GW was absent from the fair i talked about earlier, instead they will attend on a Con where i can't spend them a visit).

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

I dont mind the fonts, but if you were tweaking any formatting, could you change the background of the gradient fill text boxes? - they look too 'word-arty'.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

For simplicities sake I'd stick with calling it a Hellhound Squadron. I agree with changing the other terminology to match Vraks.

If you have space to split off the AA to be a Anti-Aircraft Battery that might make more sense as it's not really heavy and it also then means the heavy options are all the same or more expensive as the light ones. Really not important though.

I'll play this list more soon. I still have at a particular issue I'll bring up properly when time allows.

Lets all playtest this! To death!

Looks pretty good !   I would think the DKoK would have Ragnaroks & Siegfrieds ?   But again, I could be wrong ...    

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

hmm, no heavy weapons in the standard inf. company and no transport for the fire support upgrades. is that intentional ?

_________________
"god help me, i do love it so" - Patton

Yes to both to match Krieg in W40k/the background - they're the only guard infantry of the many different types that do not have the option for their own heavy weapons in infantry squads, rather they are concentrated in seperate formations so the infantry squads can charge off over no-man's land without getting slowed down by heavy weapons. The heavy weapons teams then are a static defence for the trenches, not something that is transported - they use the Gorgons simply to throw 50 guardsmen a pop at the enemy.

*is surprised* hang on... it gains what? That gun is a heavy stubber not an autocannon! Only a baneblade has a co-axial autocannon.

See these photos and you'll see the two sorts of guns and that it clearly is a heavy stubber:




Personally I still feel strongly that Leman Russes should be done properly (it's my only real issue with the list as it stands), either:

Removing all sponson weapons from the Leman Russes and varients as they simply do not use them in the background (not one of the several dozen or more Krieg tanks in the Vraks books has them). Add a pintle mounted heavy stubber to every Krieg tank instead (probably the super-heavies too for consistencies sake) and knock the points down by 5-10 points each (10-15 for demolishers).

OR

As above, but making the sponsons optional or not, so that those with them can have them exactly like now, but those who want to do Krieg properly and not want to pay points for extra guns (which they'll refuse to use in battle as they're not carried by the models) can get a small amount of points back for doing so and not need to selectively apply the stats. It could be done simply enough with a star next to the tanks that could in the list and a note below mentioning the discounted cost without the sponsons.

I'm going to try sponsonless ones in my next Krieg game anyway, like you suggested the first time I brought it up and I'll see how they do.

Really? I thought it was an Autocannon.

Assume Heavy Stubber for +5pts instead then.


I'm very wary of doing this, as the list should be able to be used by a lot of people, and the only person in the world with the capability to make sponsonless Russes is... me.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

He's right.

The Vanquisher entry in IA1update28AUG.pdf says:


Also the sponson-less idea is interesting. I really don't know the reason why FWs Leman Russes always have no sponsons. Perhabs FW just dislikes them?

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

I believe this to be the reason.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Making sponsonless Leman Russes is fairly easy: Put SG Leman Russ turrets on FW Leman Russ chassis.

This will give you an equal amount of sponson fitted Leman Russ variants too

Speaking of Leman Russ variants: I'm stillundecided if Leman Russ Exterminators, Executioners and Annihilators should be included too. At least they are listed in Vraks 1.

At least Executioner is currently a problem as iirc it seems still to be undecided if the stats of its main gun should be changed or not. And this pretty muich ties in with the jet undecided solution to the Plasma Cannon.

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