Tactical Command | View topic - Crisis unit survivability

Page 5 of 6

[ 83 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

Crisis unit survivability

Steele

Post subject: Crisis unit survivability

Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:50 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany

Quote (Tactica @ 17 2005 Aug.,19:00)

I would encourage others to give this some playtest and report on success/failure. I'm going to try and get some more games in with this now that my group has ok'd it... (well, all that have responded to the inquiry have approved it thus far anyway - and the majority have responded!) ? :cool:

Ok, I will give it a go next Saturday, against Eldar. I?ll also try to prove that an all Vehicle Eldar Army is beatable by the Tau.

Cheers!
Steele

_________________
Quid pro Quo

Top

Legion 4

Post subject: Crisis unit survivability

Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 3:41 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36984
Location: Ohio - USA

Very interested in hearing about the T&K vs. the Eldar. Modern/Hi-tech vs. Old school/Hi-tech ... Should be a good game !

_________________
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."

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Crisis unit survivability

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 2:59 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241

Steele,

I bow in your prowess and understanding of the Epic:Tau and infinite wisdom in the ways of all things Eldar.

I am... in awe.

Seriously, good luck to you. I hope you cram a railcannon down his Avatar's throat for me! *PLEASE!*

I have to admit, playing the proposed skimmer rules has helped tremendously in getting the occasional draw, but I'm still getting my arse handed to me by them. I've yet to win a game against them with Tau as long as crisis/broadsides are LV's and tau have limited AT threats.

A talented Eldar player knowledgable of the Tau list should be able to neutralize your threat to him fairly quickly IMHO. My opinion of course. Also, coming from me - that should be no surprise to you though

Playing proposed skimmer rules plus LV to infantry on broadsides and crisis should both help.

Not that you are doing this part - but changing GM to 5+ instead of 6+ (like the new FW Epic Tau list is) with the above in place too may be enough for tau to get some wins against *my* local Eldar opponent. Perhaps that is better for another thread though.

I'll be very interested in hearing about your bat rep. Good luck again!

_________________
Rob

Top

Steele

Post subject: Crisis unit survivability

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:24 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany

Quote (Tactica @ 19 2005 Aug.,03:59)

Steele,

I bow in your prowess and understanding of the Epic:Tau and infinite wisdom in the ways of all things Eldar.

I am... in awe.

I'll be very interested in hearing about your bat rep. Good luck again!

@Tactica
I accept your humble awe....

Seriuosly, as I also play Eldar, in fact before the Tau I only played Eldar, I have a chance. I think I have a decent knowledge of their capabilities, and of course of our tiny Taus, so on average Dice Rolls of mine I should give them a punch, and of course if Terrain isn?t that bad for me too.

Cheers!
Steele

_________________
Quid pro Quo

Top

baronpiero

Post subject: Crisis unit survivability

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 4:08 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:38 pm
Posts: 186

Well, despite I did not comment on the other thread of the specialist games forum (http://forums.specialist-games.com/forum....hpage=1), I quite agree with a lot of things that were said by Kyrt and I now have a very clear idea of how I would-like Crisis Battlesuit to be represented in Epic. IMO, Crisis battlesuit have more things in common with powered armors than with mechanized warmachines:
- The size of an XV8 is identical to those of other big infantry units like Tyranid warriors or ogryns.
- Crisis are 100% anthropomorphic, thus more manoeuvrable than any dreadnaught or scouting walker out there: I mean, they can croutch, turn their mechanical head, maybe duck and climb to some extent. And they can certainly modify their target profile depending on nearby terrain.
- They are also pictured as quite agile in the artwork of the Tau codex, unlike those lumbering dreadnaughts, or those joystick-controlled walkers. The level of interfacing between the pilot and the machine is huge. Therefore, Crisis battlesuits are more worn like a power-armor than piloted like a mech.

In the light of recent discussions, I don't think that 'Light Vehicle' correctly captures the XV8 any more, for it pictures them as lumbering tanks with legs, which they are not. On the contrary, they should be capable of negociating difficult terrain with ease. They are not especially big either, so they must be able to enter buildings (my main grief against the LV specification indeed). I see them as a further step in the development of personal power-armor, in which limbs are partially or completely mechanical, rather than just an exoskeleton. XV8 is a mechanical improvement of an infantry soldier. Hence they should be infantry. But then maybe we will have to look at their cost again.

Top

Lion in the Stars

Post subject: Crisis unit survivability

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 8:22 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455

I guess I've changed sides in this discussion, because now I think that Crisis suits should be LV (or H.Inf, if such a thing is created). Unless we assume that there are at least 4 drones on the base, Crisis suits without drones are really vulnerable to AT fire (isn't that the definition of Light Vehicle?). Right now, a Marine Devastator squad will wipe out a Crisis or Broadside team in one turn's shooting, on average (40k terms).

Disgruntled with 40k-ness: The Majority toughness/Armor Save rules absolutely pillage drones attached to crisis suits right now.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Top

xerxes

Post subject: Crisis unit survivability

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:45 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:31 pm
Posts: 13

The Dev example isn't valid here, they would be using the AP value regardless of if the Crisis are Inf or LV. The situations that LV make them more vulnerable to is firefights against AP-light units.

(I'd still like to see them AV though)

Top

baronpiero

Post subject: Crisis unit survivability

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:09 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:38 pm
Posts: 186

While I was reading through the pages of IA3, I spotted the following. That quite explains my point about Crisis as infantry:

IA3:
Those Firewarriors that prove themselves in battle can earn the right to bear the title of shas'ui and wear a Crisis Battlesuit

Crisis suits are worn, like a personal power armor, this means a lot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlesuit
Most mecha are not human-enhancing exoskeletons so much as human-operated robots, although there are some exceptions to the rule. The distinction between smaller mecha and their smaller cousins (and likely progenitors), the powered armor suits, is blurred; according to one definition, a mecha is piloted while a powered armor is worn. Anything large enough to have a cockpit where the pilot is seated is generally considered a mecha.

No co?cidence IMO, as I don't expect GW guys to ignore the 'state of art'.

IA3:
Battlesuits are protected by dense nanocrystalline alloy armour. These advanced alloys have an impact resistance structure, as well ashelping to keep the suit's weight down. This reduced weight means it can operate effectively using its Tau jetpack for manoeuvrability and dropping from transport craft, like[...]. The Jetpacks combine anti gravitic and jet technology to make the battlesuit extremely agile for its size.
There is a reference to nano-engineered materials in research today. Not only armour, but everything that pulls the weight down and increases agility, like artificial muscles, smart components etc...(http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2043) All you need to build and artificial body, sort of.

Top

Lion in the Stars

Post subject: Crisis unit survivability

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:10 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455

What I mean is that a squad of devastators (armed with Missile Launchers or Lascannon) in 40k will, on average, kill an entire unit of Crisis suits in one round of shooting.

I know that Devs in E:A would use their AP to attack Crisis units. I'm just comparing unit effectiveness in 40k to unit effectiveness in E:A (which, we all agree, should be comparable).

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Crisis unit survivability

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:15 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241

Baron P,

Welcome aboard!

Lion in the Stars,

I think what you are missing is that devistators in epic will indeed be able to hurt crisis if they are infantry... remember, a 40K game is a single engagement in Epic.

In Epic, the FF of the devistators will do nasty things to the crisis even if htey were only AP targets.

However, when you get outside of combats and FF in epic, (beyond 15cm) you enter a much larger scaled up version of 40K.

Now you have all kinds of menaces on the field, smoke, debris, rises and valley's not accurately reflected on a flat tabletop... you can have crouched infantry, etc...

Thousand son terminators, Tau Cirsis/Broadsides, Ogryns, Terminators, Chaos Obliterators, Marine Bikes, rough riders - or any larger than IG infantry for that matter - could of course die from a devistators lascannon or missle outside of 15cm in Epic... the designers chose to specifically avoid this though. In Epic - the decision was made to steer such formations from directing fire at infantry units that might be harder if not impossible to really effect significantly with tank busting weapons. It also works to reflect what targets 'devistator' and the alike units would actually value as prime targets for the kind of weapons they are packing.

Many of the developers have wieghed in on the SG forum as well as general population alike. I think there's a wealth of good information there.

The significant majority of players as well as developers alike *appears* to be that that LV's should be reserved for just that - actual single vehicle models that are barely vehicles. So an example would be: Ork truks, buggies, scorchas... DE skimmers... Tau Tetras... Space Marine land speeders... IG Sentinels. These are all armor 10 vehicles in 40K and should be light vehicles in Epic.

In addition, Tau crisis and broadsides need to fall into the infantry bucket in effort to maintain consistency with existing and future lists in development anyway.

Furthermore, if broadsides and crisis were to remain as LV's, many other lists would need to revisit their units and signficant changes would need to be considered lest we further damage consistency between lists converted from 40K.

Finally, Crisis and broadsides are recommended to have 2-4 models per base for those that are concerned with such things. In addition, drones are considered to be factored into all tau formations. From a total wounds/models perspective - a crisis unit can have 9 models compared to a marine squad of 10 and tau crisis can have 12 wounds compared ot the same 10 wounds of marine models. However, most of the developers appear to consider how many models/wounds are on an epic base a moot point to this discussion.

'wave'

Rob

_________________
Rob

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Crisis unit survivability

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:59 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241

BTW: had a chance to play a smaller tau game against a load of orcs last weekend 3K game.

We used 3 rule modified rules:
1) the proposed skimmer variant rules of 'he whom which is closer to intervening terrain gets the advantage'.

2) We also used crisis/broadsides as Infantry.

3) All GM as 5+ instead of 6+

The GM really didn't make a hill of beans difference as he had almost an entire infantry army. The only targets they had were flak wagons in the huge mobs, the gargant which started in a far corner and didn't really enter the game until turn 3, and landed landas - once they did their thing. Almost all GM's went after the gargant but outside of knocking down shields and watching him make 4+ RA rolls, the GM's didn't do much. At least we were making him roll dice with our GM's - that felt good - although no impact.

My crisis died in this game as they typically die, but they were able to hole up in a building (yay!) and once assaulted with a mob aboard a land with FF support from a Big mob that just doubled to set up FF support, it was all over but the crying for the crisis. The formations movement felt right though. I took stealths with them as well as some regular drones and was very happy with the way the formation played. It was much more logical for me. My opponent said he didn't feel the formation was even close to imbalanced. He said infantry crisis in Epic are nowhere near the headache for him that they are in 40K. (because they rarely die in 40K due to the evade/hit-and-run epic equivilent) He said, "why wouldn't they be infantry?" LOL - I agreed.

The broadsides as infantry really impact him either. He had plenty of AP shots, and the occasional macro-weapon splashed into his formations. They did allow me to deploy them into two side by side bunkers early on though. That just felt right (and looked cool I might add) though they were out of range from his shots, they had a fortified area to sit in while we waited on the approaching landas. Infantry for these guys just made sense too.

I'm sold on the new/improved/experimental 'whoever's closer' skimmer rules we've been testing. They are just a no brainer simple fix to the existing rules IMHO. We've had no complaints are arguments since instilling them. Everyone in the group has tried them now and the group is sold. As of last weekend, we've adopted them as permenant.

As far as the game went, On turn 3, he basically had me in positioning. I was having some difficulty putting enough shots on him to break those huge formations when also having to deal with an approaching gargant, but more importantly - the planes and 2 landas.

At the end of turn 3, I got lucky - err... had a nice opponent... I had one drone unit from one formation on his side of the table, but otherwise he controlled all three of the objectives on his side of the table and I had no formations on his side of the table... however, because I did have one unit on his side of the table from my formation, we pushed on to turn 4. He said he wasn't going to take a cheap win... if we had stopped there, it would have been 2-0 Orcs...

As he was doing the 3rd turn stretch of formations for the win, and I was just trying to hold my ground to contest for a 4th turn, I ended up being in a much better position to start turn 4. I should also note that he went first on the 1st and 3rd turn, and I went first on the 2nd and 4th turns. My rallies on turn 3 went better than the orc rallies on the end of turn 3 too.

So turn 4 kicked off and a big coordinated fire effort busted the remains of one of his last formations that failed to clean up some blast markers so they broke and were out of the game... that was a huge move for me as this formation was contesting both of the objectives I needed to get too - neither of which was his board edge objective. He only had one other formation that could contest these two objectives, and they were only 9 strong. The two objectives were basically in the open too! He did have a big ol' gargant coming around a mountain side that would be in fire range soon, but not in objective contest range. I would ultimately gain control of the two objectives on his side of the table for my first victory condition in turn 4, that would also take away the victory condition he *almost* had for me almost not having any units on his side of the field. It also lost him sole control of the three objectives on his side of the table, so all the sudden the tables really turned with me winning at 1-0!

Unfortunately, we had to call this game though.

The owner of the local place we normally play at had his wedding anniversary on Monday and they had early morning plans for Sunday, we were already at 3:30am by this time so we called it after he had a failed attempt to break my formation holding the two objectives on his side of the table.

So a draw... as we were both badly brutalized, by this time, we called it a well fought draw. This was definitely a bloody battle.

Neither one of us had any chance of break their spirit... I had no chance of taking out his gargant whom which I had only just recently knocked down his shields and done one permanent wound too thus far in turn 4, and he had no chance of taking out my 2 moray formation which was well hid.

Neither of us was going to get blitzgrieg... so we were really fighting over three objectives at this stage of the game in our minds. The likeliness of my holding his two objectives appeared pretty good. He could easily get to my side of the table and did so with his gargant - just to be prove a point

So neither of us was going to claim 'no enemy on your side of the table' objective. So the only way for me to win was to get him off of my right most table objective while holding all three of mine... it meant my lone FW stand that rallied on turn 3 might be a key unit if things all went well... but as stated, we were out of time and it was a bit of stretch to try and pull off.

As far as damage that I can remember, both of his landas and mobs aboard them had died by now. My crisis formation with stealths and drones had died. My pathfinders with DF had died. I broke one of his 3 Huge Mobs and killed another. The third was just too far away to be in the game at this point and was required to hold his table edge objective and one of the objectives on my side of the field... (yeah, they were stretched all over the place...) On the other hand, my moorays had plans to move over and put just enough models in range that were on my side of the field to hopefully rectify him contesting MY objective.... arrgghh... One of my two hammerhead formations was down to 2 models, the other had lost 1 model but was in pretty good shape overall. I still had my 3 barracudas and his 8 man ork fighter squad was down to 4 models. I also had a broadside formation with some drones that was still alive and kicking but had lost one drone and one broadside. I had an 8-man FW squad that had 1 unit remaining and rallied on the end of turn 3 (but broke on turn 1 before I could activate them!) Ironically, they were ready for turn 4 objective contesting - LOL.

This was one of my most enjoyable tau epic games to date. Lots of belly laughing in this one. More importantly, the formations felt right too! The three modified rules we were playing worked very well for this game from both of our perspectives.

I'm hoping to get a rematch with this guy this weekend. We'll see. I'm considering trying the manta if the game is large enough.

'wave'

Rob

_________________
Rob

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Crisis unit survivability

Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:00 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

Almost all GM's went after the gargant but outside of knocking down shields and watching him make 3+ RA rolls,

Is this a typo, or are you still using non-errata rules?

As far as infantry/non-infantry versus orks, orks have probably the most versatile shooting of any army in the game. Only the Twin-linked Big Shootas don't have the same AP and AT values, so the target category makes little difference to them in most cases.

_________________
Neal

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Crisis unit survivability

Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 5:30 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241

NH - LOL, yeah, that was a typo... 4+ RA. My fault.

I'll revise original post. Good eye.

_________________
Rob

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Crisis unit survivability

Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 6:30 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241

I should note that I got my rematch against the ork player last weekend. We played a 4K game. Tau v Orks... (or so I thought)

We both agreed friday night to have a 4K battle rematch on Saturday. It kicked off at 2pm and we played till midnight with breaks.

We used the same rules variances as we used last week.
1) 'whoever's closer benefits' skimmer rule
2) crisis and broadsides as infantry
3) All GMs as 5+ instead of 6+

My list was something like:

Crisis+shaso+stealths+gundrones
FW+devilfish+hammerheads
FW
Pathfinders+Devilfish
3 Rail-head + 2 Ion-head + Swordfish
3 Rail-head + 2 Ion-head + Swordfish
Broadsides+Gun Drones
Narwhal (Scorpionfish)
Human Auxillaries
2 Morays
Barracudas
Barracudas

His list was something like:

Gargant (7 shields + 8BP MW shot + grot droppings)
Custom Gargant (5 shields + 8BP MW shot + grot droppings)
Supa-Stompa (1 shield + 6BP MW shot) + 9 Stompas + AA upgrades
Supa-Stompa (1 shield + 6BP MW shot) + 9 Stompas + AA upgrades
Landa
- 2 dreads, 3 killa-kans + 3 deathcoptas
Landa
- 2 dreads, 3 killa-kans + 3 deathcoptas
9 Fighter-Bombas

*** Yeah, he played OGM without me knowing it! ***

So, this was a major suprise to me to say the least. After last week, I was really expecging the infantry. I thought he might change it up a bit and go for some of the heavier vehicles, and considering I couldn't touch his titan last time, I figured I'd see another one... LOL, I seen more armor than I had ever hoped for - yay...

My Morays played as the worst thing I could have had against him in this game. For example, he was using the "always can see them" against me. Case and point: There was a massive forest that I had a hammerhead contingent and a FW with devilfish contingent hiding behind from his gargant on one flank... I moved the moorays up to fire on some stompas, but I was ~10cm or so behind the closest hammerhead that was hiding behind the forest. He drew a line over the forest to my moorays with his custom gargant and dropped 3 templates - 1 on teh two moorays, then the next were placed to go into the hammerheads and the firewarriors that were out of LOS and hiding behind the treeline. I couldn't find anything that said he couldn't do this as is first template was already placed to touch both of the morays.

Then he retained and the other gargant did the same thing... blah... that was a brutal hit. This happened on the second turn and the moorays already had one blast marker on them to start the turn... after taking a hit against the second gargant, the formation broke (had to place 2 blast markers for coming under fire both times) that really blew. So, in the end, the moorays did nothing for me in this game except kill two stompas - that was it! I can usually count on them to help get me out of a jam like I count on terminators, or a leman russ co - not this game. Not at all.

My significant amount activations by comparison helped me. All of my AP fire (stealths, drones, FW's, pathfinders, human auxillaries...) was all just a waste. Markers helped a bit in this game as we were using GM's as base 5+ instead of base 6+. The scorpionfish actually hit a couple times in this game! It was nice to see that thing actually get targetted as a possible threat for once! I fully believe these have to be fielded in pairs to be effective though. My crisis formation was able to jump into a building spaceport complex and set up a crossfire that ultimately borke a stompa mob - so that was cool to see. (we allowed them as infantry instead of LV's) but their 15cm MW guns never got fired once in this game. As a result, that was a really REALLY expensive formation for 4 AT shots :\ I wish their plasma rifles had some AT effectiveness to them like the storm troopers in IG. The shas'o crisis commander only adding an AP shot doesn't help much either.

The broadsides didn't use their 'infantry' ability this game. They were fired on by the occasional blasts, but he was doubling and firing at units in cover, so he wasn't doing much damage when he fired at them. Broadsides were instrumental in actually killing one stompa mob + supastompa over 3 turns.

The GM 5+ helped my firewarriors and Devilfish unit with hammerhead upgrade actually become a formation I could do something with against his army. The seekers didn't do much, but did make him roll dice more than they typically do and we got some actual AT hits this game. The hammerhead formations also got a couple hits with their seekers, so overall, the 5+ didn't do a whole hell of alot in the end, but did do more than it usually does. In 40K, seekers hit on 2+ and are really good at breaking armor, in Epic, the GM5+ was at least allowing them to have an effect. 6+ doesn't do squat IMHO.

My MVP's might have been my barracudas this game though. they were key in putting the last blast marker or two on a landa on the ground or the landa's contents or adding more blast markers to a broken stompa mob. They were used more for blast markers than damage, but they were handy as both of his landas blew up by the end of turn 2 (one on turn 1 one on turn 2) after they landed, beat me in combat, but would eventually break with enemy within 15cm of them later in the turn.

The landa assaults were brutal. I had no hope against those things and their assaults. Intermingled HH and FW's supported by one mooray - and I still lost to one of those asasults - HH and FW's break before activate - hurts!

The other landa dropped down and completely wrecked the FW without vehicles and the pathfinders that were supporting would get blast marker.

His MVPs were probably his two gargants. I couldn't touch them. The stompas were coming up my left most flank, and the gargants were seperated on the left and right flanks. The gargants were pounding me with the many templates and MW... the stompas were doing the same but with 6BP instead of 8... it was sick. It was all I could do to break one stompa formation and kill it in turn 3 gaining me Break their Spirit.

Turn 3 broke down like this:

He had a gargant with warlord charge my human axiliary and intermingled pathfinders, but only to FF and only in range to kill three of them... (all PF's) I do nothing to him and he kills 3 PF's. In a blinding bit of luck, I roll a 6, he rolls a 3, I have more units, he has 2 blast markers and I have 1 blast marker. I win, the gargant breaks!!! Whoo-hoo, he was holding two objectives and was on my side of the table - not anymore!

He had one formation that escaped from a landa and was wounded and down to 4 models, but was holding the flank objective on his table half on my right side. This formation was straggled out into my table half - but he was in the open bad. Barracudas would move in to kill two LV coptors and cause the formation to break (yay!) - they would be reduced down to a single plane on the way out - but so what!

Although he had two live gargants (one only broke) and one almost unscathed stompa mob, he now had no units of unbroken formations on my side of the table... heh - his own dumb luck as he shouldn't have charged with the gargant... he should have just fired... he was trying to be orky, and it bit him in the a$$ really hard... had he shot, he would have contested both of the left flank objectives on my side of the table - but he broke him for me!! LOL! As both of his stompa mobs were the same size, I had gained break their spirit by killing one of them.

So the tau pulled this one off with a win that should have went to turn 4 for an unknown result as we were beaten up pretty badly, but had a lot more formations to control the board with... to hard to say what would have happened in turn 4. I suspect this one would have went to dice off for turn 5 and then victory points.

This game to follow last weeks orc engagement where we did draw.

Unfortunately in both games - orcs should have won.

On the up side, GM at 5+ and crisis and broadsides as infantry not only just makes sense, but it works without a hitch or complaint thus far. It infantry crisis also allows the stealths to be fielded in their formation intead of taking heavy gun drones for the same purpose. That makes the stealths actually have a purpose. Win/Win so far from my playtest now.

_________________
Rob

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Crisis unit survivability

Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 7:09 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

Landa
- 2 dreads, 3 killa-kans + 3 deathcoptas

For future reference, you might tell your opponent this is not a legal load. Dreadnoughts and LVs (except kanz) count as 2 for transport capacity. He was 3 units over the transport capacity of 10.

_________________
Neal

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 5 of 6

[ 83 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests

Crisis unit survivability

Who is online