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

Vraksian Traitors 1.06
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=17252		 Page 6 of 7
Author:  Mard [ Tue Jan 27, 2015 7:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Vraksian Traitors 1.06
I honestly think the malcadors are ok, and I like the enforcers being how they are, Taking out the Warlord, I'm ok with.

Let's play this list a bit as is again first in clubs (I know a couple in Australia where people are making them), before starting to make changes.
Stress the current list, work out what doesn't work with reports first, then let's look at what to change.
Author:  GlynG [ Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Vraksian Traitors 1.06
jimmyzimms wrote:
I think the lack of someone to actually Sheppard it has much to do with it languishing in relative obscurity. Perhaps I'm simply deluded :) Someone go poke GlynG ;D

Heh, thanks for the suggestion.

I'm just catching up properly after being away for a while (went on a 750km bicycle around New Zealand). Good to see so much interest in the Vraksians :) I'm keen on them (I reckon the FW Vraks books are perhaps the best things GW have put out) and I have an army of Malcadors and Vraksian infantry sculpts to use for them. I've considered offering to take over the list for some time, but there didn't seem much interest in them and I hadn't got round to it. I've just dropped Steve54 a PM and suggested it.

On the topic of Malcadors they are renowned for having underpowered engines that make them less effective in combat and have led to them being relegated to low priority duties like serving with PDF forces or being mothballed entirely. An epic Malcador is very similar to a Leman Russ and costs the same, having a slightly better armament (2 Lascanons and a Heavy Bolter as secondary) at the cost of a slower 15cm speed.

Yet with the epic rules the 15cm Malcadors are able to garrison far forward, counteracting the low movement, plus they can then start on overwatch. 15cm move for them in Epic is overall better than 20cm so they end up superior to Leman Russes rather than worse. 15cm move is appropriate for them, garrisoning isn't particularly. It's also entirely feasible to field entire armies of garrisoning 4+ Reinforced tanks and I question whether this is wise from a balance or background perspective. Preventing garrisoning would make them worse, but they'd still be good choices (particularly the Defender, Valdor and Minotaur).

There are various new units to test and balance correctly but I don't see why the list can't be balanced for tournament play and potentially eventually make it into the tournament pack if people get behind it. It has less unit types available than existing approved lists and with a bit of toning down and limiting it should be fine, while still characterful.

If I were to take over the list I would change:
* Add siege fortifications – trenches, bunkers, razorwire and minefields. Vraks are a defensive siege army known to use these very extensively and the lack of these in the current list is a bizarre mistake.
* Add a 'Workers Rabble' unit like there is in the 40k list (mass unit of cheap canon fodder, FF/CC 6+ no ranged weapons).
* Have a 'May Not Garrison' note barring dedicated Malcador, Minotaur and Valdor formations from garrisoning (allow infantry formations with attached Malcadors to garrison as normal).
* Probably remove Warlord Titans, Harbringers and Deathstrikes (not known to be used by the Vraksians and helps add disadvantages).
* Keep Malcadors a core formation as a focus for the list, have Leman Russes only as a smaller support formation.
* Possibly make the Alpha Legion 0-1? Possibly 6 strong rather than 8 too.?They're meant to be rare and a 40k Vraks army can only take 0-1 squad of 5-10.
Author:  carlisimo109 [ Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Vraksian Traitors 1.06
GlynG wrote:
* Have a 'May Not Garrison' note barring dedicated Malcador, Minotaur and Valdor formations from garrisoning (allow infantry formations with attached Malcadors to garrison as normal).

That's reasonable. There are Eldar with garrison restrictions so it wouldn't be an unusual addition, especially with the rule being part of the list and not the unit.

Everything else sounds fine. I think I prefer 0-1 large Alpha Legion formation over 2-3 smaller ones.
Author:  Onyx [ Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Vraksian Traitors 1.06
If the list were to change too much from it's current form, I'd be less likely to build an army using it.
Author:  jimmyzimms [ Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vraksian Traitors 1.06
Hey GlynG, what do you think about instead removing March ability from Malcs? Seems to fit the fluff them being mobile bunkers more than anything else.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vraksian Traitors 1.06
I've used Malcadors a lot. Without the ability to garrison, they'd not be worth taking without a big points drop.
Author:  Mard [ Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Vraksian Traitors 1.06
Onyx wrote:
If the list were to change too much from it's current form, I'd be less likely to build an army using it.



I'm with Onyx on this, It is the list in it's current form that attracted me to it, It's why i put the time to get it into Army Forge.
I'd like to see some work done it as well, but let's get some reports done with it in it's current edition before we start looking to change things, start playing games, try to brake the current list do the reports and get them up.

After we have a few reports from a couple of different groups world wide we can then start to talk about changes
Author:  GlynG [ Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Vraksian Traitors 1.06
Evil and Chaos wrote:
I've used Malcadors a lot. Without the ability to garrison, they'd not be worth taking without a big points drop.

I've used the new vehicles a load too and found them too powerful myself. I think they could do with toning down, obviously they would be worse without garrison and small point drops could be in order (helping with the horde feel). Large numbers of powerful garrisoning tanks seems like an abusable gimmick rather than something characteristically Vraksian.

jimmyzimms wrote:
Hey GlynG, what do you think about instead removing March ability from Malcs? Seems to fit the fluff them being mobile bunkers more than anything else.

I reckon their garrisoning would still be too good even if they couldn't march.

Onyx wrote:
If the list were to change too much from it's current form, I'd be less likely to build an army using it.


I wouldn't want to change it too much either; most of it is fine as is. I'd like to improve some areas a bit, but even if all the changes I suggested above were to make the cut and be adopted Vraks armies would still look largely the same.
Mard wrote:
I'd like to see some work done it as well, but let's get some reports done with it in it's current edition before we start looking to change things, start playing games, try to brake the current list do the reports and get them up.

I don't see the point in sticking strictly to the existing list when some things are blatantly wrong with it and would surely be changed whoever takes over – I'm thinking of the lack of defensive siege structures and the aircraft using the old costs and stats that have since been changed in the BL list.

I've suggested limiting the vehicles from garrisoning but sure yes, lets play the existing version a load and see how they perform first, to better judge whether such a change would be needed.
Author:  Matty_C [ Wed Feb 11, 2015 5:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vraksian Traitors 1.06
Just throwing this one out there, but the new Vraks book from Forgeworld is up for pre-order. A quick scan of the contents page indicates that there is just one Vraksian renegades list now, rather than the three in the older books.
I think that as the list here is being reviewed at the moment there is an excellent opportunity now to update the EA list in a similar vein. It would require the addition of a few flavourful detachments, such as plague marines and berserkers, but wouldn't unbalance things too much in my (somewhat inexperienced) opinion.

Thoughts?
Author:  Mard [ Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vraksian Traitors 1.06
I'm pretty much waiting now to see who the new army Sub AC will be for this list
After that we'll see what happens
It's been almost 2 weeks, just awaiting Steve's response
Author:  Matty_C [ Fri Feb 13, 2015 10:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Vraksian Traitors 1.06
No worries Mard. Sounds good.
Author:  Borka [ Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vraksian Traitors 1.06
Is the file at the begining of this thread still the current one. I ask since it's rather old.
Author:  Mard [ Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Vraksian Traitors 1.06
It's the current one for playtesting yes.
Cal the current AC is wanting playtests of the original list before changes are made
Author:  Beefcake4000 [ Mon Feb 08, 2016 10:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Vraksian Traitors 1.06
Keen to see an update on vraks. It's an interesting build and did well at Cancon but this list needs a freshening up now so that we can move forward. Stats need to be consistent with other lists at least.

Hopefully an option to run units of 6 tanks too.
Page 6 of 7 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/