| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
|
(nealhunt @ Jun. 09 2007,03:39)
QUOTE It shares some similar formations with the SM armor list that's floating around, except the max armor formation size is 6 instead of 8. Tacs in LRs. Variant LRs and mix-n-match unit types. Armor support for every infantry formation.
The varients yes, but I reckon most future marine lists will feature a few. The mix and match bit I believe is less flexible than the current marine list. Certainly nothing like devs, 4 raiders and hunters. Also every marine formation already has armour support - here it is different tanks and less of it.
I can see this list being viable with very little infantry and 20+ tanks on the board, not counting Razorbacks and Rhinos. Two Pred formations at 6 each and Whirlwinds is 16 tanks. Throw in a couple Tactical formations with armor support and you're ~2000 points, with 20 tanks and 5 activations. That seems like a good armor-centric core army to me.
As a point of interest can't you do that with the revised book list? And with devs especially be more extreme?
There's nothing wrong with that and certainly no balance issues stick out. I was just surprised - pleasantly so.
Ah, so we can stick it straight out there as official!
I have a vague unease about the amount of customizing that could potentially be done. Formations can mix and match a wide range of AVs. That seems sort of hodge-podge and might invite min-maxing. I could see, as an example, a Tac formation with 2 LRs out front for armor saves, 1 Razorback and 1 Rhino for extra transport capacity.
That is indeed exactly the sort of formation you are meant to make  Though I wouldn't be surprised if most switched the two raiders for a crusader, razor and hunter to get air cover with the formation.
I do think in my tests to date that you do need 'help' in getting these MM guys up there. The air assault option is deliberately more expensive to stop it being the mainstay. The terminators aren't there old multi role self. Fast attack is quite limited. So the devs and tacs really are the main formations here and if you want to take advantage of the boolstered sizes you need something that helps close the range.
Plus 'raiders are slower than rhinos and ever little thing like that I hopes gives the flavour of the army more chance to shine through.
(Hena @ Jun. 09 2007,04:03)
QUOTE 1. The Predator/Vindies/Whirlwinds possibility of taking Land Raiders.
Yes currently thats a consequence of the upgrade structure. But...
Vindicators and a Land Raider? 375 points for 4 vindies and 1 raider - why not get a Land Raider formation instead? Tougher, more firepower for use in general etc. PLus the tanks don't havbe the same targets. Vindies tend to hunt infnatry in cover. 100 points to have the lead tank have RA is a bit steep. Sure try it but I don't think its a good use of points.
Whirlwinds and a Land Raider?? Okay, so you aren't getting a hunter you are getting a land raider instead? Do you intend to be doing a lot of move and fire with the formation?
Preds and the raider. Here is something possibly. 4 annihilators, 1 hunter and a Land Raider - 450 points. Okay so it lacks the sheer sixe of the core list (4 annihilators, 2 vindies and 2 hunters) but its cheaper and tougher against the odd shot whilst the raider survives. This I think is the only formation to watch.
2. Land Raiders costing 75 points a piece (same as Chaos without ATSKNF) for termies. Perhaps use the pair at 175?
No. You have to look at the content - what are you adding it to in the Chaos list? Indeed I worry here the Raiders should be a bit cheaper. Why? Because you are adding them to units with heavy flamers. There is zero synergy there. Indeed I think it far more likely a crusader or two would be used if the terminators have a burning desire to mechanise. Try the formation - it will underwealm you. Haven't tried with crusaders yet though, I hope they will be a lot better. Note they cost 100 points each for termies.
3. Single helios costing 25 points. It's almost automatic choice at that cost. Perhaps 50?
Maybe, only tried it once so far, as BL said its early days and I doubt we have played more than a half dozen games each (course BL may I have played loads, I have no idea ).
4. Terminators at 325. You have taken the 25 points off from armour formation, but not raised the cost of termies?
Yes, quite deliberately. I don't know if BL has used the termies much yet but the change in weapons really makes 'em a two trick pony - close assault and anti infantry. What would you rather - 2 assault cannon (30cm, 5+/5+) or 2 hve flamer (15cm, 4+, ignore cover). I've used flamers a lot with the siegers and they aren't that hot (har har). The terminators twice now have been in a position where there choice is to either firefight (4 units, 3+, coluld be better) or place a blast marker. Most memorably against skimming eldar tanks that ran rings round them laughing (oh the shame).
Edit: I hope that you both BL and TRC check out the armoured list so that we don't go too close to one another. And I have to keep following this then as well .
We have devestators. Really I think its very different - certainly you can make some similar formations but they can't go as armour heavy as that list or the core list. Also a lot of the dynamic is around the MM marines which really alter things for the marines.
_________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x
|
|
