Tactical Command :: View topic

Quote: (GlynG @ Feb. 24 2010, 12:26 )

The fact 3/4 of the ones you take are cultists is indicative though. Mutants are usable but a bit of a sub-par choice compared to Cultists. Not sure whether it's enough of a difference to warrant a change or if anything small enough could be tweaked as -5 points or 5+ save could make them rather too good. I've seen Ryan / Man of Kent use Mutants in his LaTD, but then his is all Khorne themed so it's background appropriate.

The 6+ save Mutants get is not really enough for them to be happily left in the open - both types really have to kept in area terrain as much as possible. Might some or all Mutants have some advantage in a cheapish demon-less mechanised assaulting formation though? If you launch an assault you can never claim cover saves and having some 6+s at the front could reduce kills and lost combat resolution a small amount. Then again you're probably still better upgrading with a Chaos Spawn and a Big Mutant or few to take the hits to anyway.

Author:	lilith [ Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:58 pm ]
Post subject:	mutant vs cultist
in your opinion the point cost for mutant is correct to be the same for cultist? in my opinion cultist is more usefull and playable (they have a shoot attack and so can place Bm and do some little damage) armor 6+ ins't a really good buff and 4+ cc is good but is very difficult to place stand in close combat with premesuring (fire fight is really the way the most of the engage are played unless one of the player do some error ). Could the beastmen points drop to 10? or maybe increase the save to 5+ ?or give them the same shoot attack of the cultist? I see mutant only when someone want to upgrade them to big mutant (that guys are strong the price for them is correct maybe 5 too low)

Author:	lilith [ Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:24 am ]
Post subject:	mutant vs cultist
some other opinion^?

Author:	Irondeath [ Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:04 pm ]
Post subject:	mutant vs cultist
I consider Cultists and Mutants evenly matched as well. Rarely there is sufficient cover for an entire Coven, and guess who stands waving out in the open? Also, it is terribly wasteful to use a Coven just to place a BM, they should be engaging or marching. And if you are close enough (15cm), even Small Arms can place that BM. My current LatD builds focus on pseudo-IG Coven made up of only Cultists with Leman Russ and Hydras attached and garrisoned all-Mutant Coven led by Daemon Princes to draw fire and attention. I am musing whether adding single Griffons to Cultist Coven is worthwhile, going for that 1BP template. IIRC correctly you and someone else recently commented that Big Mutants are somewhat overpowered, I disagree and would rather go for another Coven and its extra support slot than bolster existing formations. Or add Traitor Fire Support, better range & AT punch.

Author:	GlynG [ Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:26 pm ]
Post subject:	mutant vs cultist
Quote: (Hena @ Feb. 23 2010, 07:27 ) I think it's good as is. I have 4 covens of which one is Mutants and rest Cultists. The fact 3/4 of the ones you take are cultists is indicative though. Mutants are usable but a bit of a sub-par choice compared to Cultists. Not sure whether it's enough of a difference to warrant a change or if anything small enough could be tweaked as -5 points or 5+ save could make them rather too good. I've seen Ryan / Man of Kent use Mutants in his LaTD, but then his is all Khorne themed so it's background appropriate. The 6+ save Mutants get is not really enough for them to be happily left in the open - both types really have to kept in area terrain as much as possible. Might some or all Mutants have some advantage in a cheapish demon-less mechanised assaulting formation though? If you launch an assault you can never claim cover saves and having some 6+s at the front could reduce kills and lost combat resolution a small amount. Then again you're probably still better upgrading with a Chaos Spawn and a Big Mutant or few to take the hits to anyway.

Author:	Irondeath [ Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:47 pm ]
Post subject:	mutant vs cultist
Quote: (Hena @ Feb. 24 2010, 12:11 ) Quote: (Irondeath @ Feb. 24 2010, 13:04) And if you are close enough (15cm), even Small Arms can place that BM. This is not correct. You need ranged weapons to be able to shoot. However small arms weapons can be suppressed if in range and LOS. Fine, quote more selectively though (fixed!). It is a waste still...

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

mutant vs cultist http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=17992	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Irondeath [ Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:54 pm ]
Post subject:	mutant vs cultist
Quote: (GlynG @ Feb. 24 2010, 12:26 ) The fact 3/4 of the ones you take are cultists is indicative though. Mutants are usable but a bit of a sub-par choice compared to Cultists. Not sure whether it's enough of a difference to warrant a change or if anything small enough could be tweaked as -5 points or 5+ save could make them rather too good. I've seen Ryan / Man of Kent use Mutants in his LaTD, but then his is all Khorne themed so it's background appropriate. The 6+ save Mutants get is not really enough for them to be happily left in the open - both types really have to kept in area terrain as much as possible. Might some or all Mutants have some advantage in a cheapish demon-less mechanised assaulting formation though? If you launch an assault you can never claim cover saves and having some 6+s at the front could reduce kills and lost combat resolution a small amount. Then again you're probably still better upgrading with a Chaos Spawn and a Big Mutant or few to take the hits to anyway. The problem for me is that LatD are unable to engage with any reliability. I have seen too many formations with added Big Mutants, Pacts, Icons, summoned Daemons fail their activations and be forced to shoot pitifully on the inevitable Hold. Assaulting is no longer my modus operandi, doubling forward and delivering firepower from attached IG armour is, the Cultists only serve to soak BM and provide frontage. Failing initiative is so much more palatable if you at least get to shoot some 75cm Battlecannons instead camping in the open field at point-blank range inb front of an entrenched enemy. Oh, and I have 4 Cultist and 4 Mutant Coven, 2/2 Khorne, 1/1 Nurgle and Tzeentch each.

Author:	lilith [ Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:06 pm ]
Post subject:	mutant vs cultist
[QUOTE]the Cultists only serve to soak BM and provide frontage. Then there is something wrong with the coven entry in the armylist. For 200 points we have 11 mutant/cultist and one demagogue/champion. An eldar for 150 point have 7 guardian and 1 farseer . analyze them , guardian with ff4+ can engage more strong formation and doing some damage /win engage with easy. Cultist with 5+ and 4 more stand are near in result with the guardian , but eldar have farseer that is more usefull with farsight . Eldar have 2+ initiative , cultist must be not in range of opposite cult to do the same. Mutants are even worse because their 4+ cc is very difficult to use (even with transport option).So eldar cost 50 point less and can do the same of latd or a little better. Something wrong?There are other example but for now i'm waiting yours answer.

Author:	Irondeath [ Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:29 pm ]
Post subject:	mutant vs cultist
Different formations in different armies have different purposes for different players. Very rarely E:A allows for a straight comparison. Never mind that Guardians are hardly an assault formation, they tend to take horrible losses when used as such and are usually combat ineffective thereafter. As stated above, I use Cultist Coven as a vehicle to deliver Leman Russes / Hydras / Hellhounds / maybe Griffons. IMHO this is quite fitting with the armed rabble / Traitor-PDF theme and as an added bonus it works. Trust me, your tactics and battlefield success will increase once you stop expecting any contribution at all from your Cultists and Mutants, their sole purpose is to look scarily numerous and die in droves, as it should be.

Author:	GlynG [ Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:55 pm ]
Post subject:	mutant vs cultist
Covens are a pretty good and flexible choice currently, it's just the Mutants that are not as good. Imperial Guard are a much better and fairer comparison than Eldar as their stats and capabilities are closer. Comparing a IG Mechanised Company (regarded as one of the best if not the best unit in the IG list competitively) to mechanised Covens various builds can compare well. You get 20 IG MC units for 400pts compared to 18 units for 350pts (Chimeras) or 260 (Land Transporters), the IG are generally better at shooting at range and vs AP (though the Cultists actually get slightly more hits vs AT targets - 3 compared to 2.3), but similarish in an assault. The Guard may get a commissar but the coven are 50-140 cheaper and they either get a harder marine leader or a shooty MW one. The ability to upgrade 1-3 tanks rather just a fixed 3 that's rarely taken is nice too, with . For 400pts you could get a formation in Land Transporters plus 2 attached Demolishers, slows them down a bit but it's pretty shooty and those 4+ Reinforced Armour saves could really help protect them and take hits in an assault. If you ever get to sustained fire at a nearby titan you'd actually average 8 hits with plasma, so they could be shooty as well as just assaulty. Non-mechanised garrisoning covens with 4 Fire Support and maybe an add-on tank are good too.

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