Although I like the whole small arms ignore cover idea I have to say the hellhound is currently fantastic in the steel legion and on that basis if it ain't broke don't fix it, and instead argue about baneblades
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Hellhounds poll and review http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=9555 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Dave [ Wed May 30, 2007 2:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hellhounds poll and review |
Continuing on with the randomly working through the IG review items, Hellhounds. What are peoples thoughts on this? I think flamer weapons across the board should benefit from ignore cover on their FF attack. Opinions on this? Out of curiosity, what's the justification for the Hellhounds 4+ Armour? Didn't these have special armour rules in 40k because of the large amount of volatile fuel they carried? |
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Wed May 30, 2007 2:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hellhounds poll and review |
I'm not sure about Small Arms, but Ignore Cover seems justifiable to me. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Wed May 30, 2007 2:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hellhounds poll and review |
I think flamer weapons across the board should benefit from ignore cover on their FF attack. Agreed. Didn't these have special armour rules in 40k because of the large amount of volatile fuel they carried? That'd be in the previous edition. Hellhounds now have superior armour to Chimeras. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Wed May 30, 2007 2:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hellhounds poll and review |
Hellhounds definitely don't need an upgrade currently. They are cheap and very good in FF. I see them regularly in mechanized inf and armor formations. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Wed May 30, 2007 3:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hellhounds poll and review |
I'd rather see them ignore cover in FF and cost an extra 25pts, than continue with the current odd rules kink. |
|
| Author: | J0k3r [ Wed May 30, 2007 4:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hellhounds poll and review |
Seconded! |
|
| Author: | dptdexys [ Wed May 30, 2007 5:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hellhounds poll and review |
agree with hena |
|
| Author: | Soren [ Wed May 30, 2007 5:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hellhounds poll and review |
agree with hena (again) |
|
| Author: | The_Real_Chris [ Wed May 30, 2007 7:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hellhounds poll and review |
Although I like the whole small arms ignore cover idea I have to say the hellhound is currently fantastic in the steel legion and on that basis if it ain't broke don't fix it, and instead argue about baneblades
|
|
| Author: | Blarg D Impaler [ Wed May 30, 2007 8:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hellhounds poll and review |
While the "Ignore Cover" would be logical, does the weapon/tank need it? If the tank is perceived as underpowered for the points then go ahead. But since I have not seen the Hellhound to be underpowered for the points then I suggest against it unless you raise the points cost also. |
|
| Author: | Irondeath [ Thu May 31, 2007 12:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hellhounds poll and review |
The Hellhound is fine as it is. |
|
| Author: | LordoftheMilk [ Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hellhounds poll and review |
The ignore cover on FF, should be something to review all flamer units with, and INSTEAD of the +1 FF flamers currently give. My problem with the Hellhound is that its save should be 5+ and the price for three 125 pts. It just doesnt make sense from its description (compared to the Chimeras) that it would be tougher than chimeras. I know its an interesting tactical option for gurad to include helhhounds to mechanised infantry to act as bufer for AT hits, but that anyway is a bit of out-of-character tactic to be using Hellhounds with. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hellhounds poll and review |
It just doesnt make sense from its description (compared to the Chimeras) that it would be tougher than chimeras. Hellhounds have superior armour to Chimeras, in 40k and in the background. |
|
| Author: | NOVAGUARD [ Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hellhounds poll and review |
It just doesnt make sense from its description (compared to the Chimeras) that it would be tougher than chimeras. I know its an interesting tactical option for gurad to include helhhounds to mechanised infantry to act as bufer for AT hits, but that anyway is a bit of out-of-character tactic to be using Hellhounds with. i actually use my hellhounds in 40k for that tactic as they have harder side armour so take the incoming AT instead of my troop transports... and i see these as fine... leave them be unless all flamer units get an overhaul.. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|