| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| BL review:titans http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=22986 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Steve54 [ Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | BL review:titans |
Banelord -at the moment this is rarely taken. Is this due to it being an 850pt slow WE, it being underpowered above that, or its weapon combination? IMO there are 3 options - keep as is (maybe slight tweeks in cost or stats) - rework as Banelord - rework it as a Chaos Warlord Ravager - in my opinion this is fine with the new Doomburner stats Feral - How have people found this without MW. IMO it is underpowered now compared to other small WEs |
|
| Author: | Tiny-Tim [ Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: BL review:titans |
Banelord - Keep as is, the reason why it is not taken is the cost of the rest of the army, but the same can be said with Warlords and Great Gargants. The execption is a Warlock which is worth its points. However, when they are taken they are a rare sight and so quite often they are not expected and can therefore be very effective. Ravager - Don't use it so can't comment Feral - With the tupe of armies that I play with this is still a frightening war engine to come up against and doesn't need to be changed in my opinion. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: BL review:titans |
Banelord: like the warlord that stats are fine, it's just too expensive. Feral: Found it fine @265pts. Statwise it compares very well to a std config warhound (inferno gun + VMB is a close weapon fit, though Ferals have better FF which meshes well with the BL style). Tim: disagree on the Great Gargant, it's awesome, unlike the Warlord IMO. |
|
| Author: | frogbear [ Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: BL review:titans |
I would rather rework the banelord to be a chaos titan The other two I am not fussed with |
|
| Author: | Tiny-Tim [ Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: BL review:titans |
Evil and Chaos wrote: Tim: disagree on the Great Gargant, it's awesome, unlike the Warlord IMO. Last time I played against a Warlord it was awesome as well. I was not expecting it and so it ruled the battlefield. But that's off topic |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: BL review:titans |
Despite the name, the Banelord is a Chaos Warlord. That said, the name is clearly a sticking point for many people. Strategically, it seems to be used largely as a Blitz Guard, firing the missiles for 1-2 turns, then hammering anything that penetrates toward the Blitz. Doing that it works very well. I don't recall it performing very well in any other roles. At one point, there was a long discussion about putting the Banelord at 800 points and quite a bit of testing. If memory serves, the decision was made to leave it at 850 because in that Blitz Guard role it was worth 850 points (or close to it) and you have to price for optimized use. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: BL review:titans |
Quote: Despite the name, the Banelord is a Chaos Warlord. It's armed with the same weapons as the Khorne-aligned Banelord Titan was back in 2nd ed. No other Chaos Titan could take those weapons AFAIK. |
|
| Author: | pixelgeek [ Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: BL review:titans |
nealhunt wrote: At one point, there was a long discussion about putting the Banelord at 800 points and quite a bit of testing. If memory serves, the decision was made to leave it at 850 because in that Blitz Guard role it was worth 850 points (or close to it) and you have to price for optimized use. I don't use it in that role myself but I agree that we need to price it for its most abusive role. |
|
| Author: | madd0ct0r [ Sat Apr 07, 2012 6:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: BL review:titans |
if it's not going to change I'll use it as a 2nd degree calibrator for the chaos titan list. Incidentally - what base size do people use? 60mm? |
|
| Author: | frogbear [ Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: BL review:titans |
madd0ct0r wrote: 60mm? Correct. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|