Quote: (GlynG @ Oct. 06 2009, 10:57 )
The AA list does look pretty nasty, you can do a similar but even worse thing with the Barran list can't you? What's the solution there if there was one? I'm not really up on the Barrans. I am coming round more to the idea that Trojans / Emplacements should be mandatory to cut down on such abuse some.
I would say its better than the siegers version as you can mix in Hydras and you still have an excellent attack capability, which the siege aa spam list lacks.
Yes, all for compulsory emplacements/trojans/centaurs.
And as an aside, why would you ever not take emplacements?
We basically found with the sieger list that batteries has no reasons to take tractors. The bigger formation just gave away kills and blast markers and meant you had to occupy cover that your jump off units would otherwise use. (Well flak can do with it often.) The -1 was far better than a suppressing meat shield.
Conversely the company was desperate for them as the BTS which had a 90% chance of getting air assaulted and wiped out. The tractors here meant there would be survivors that could run away and deny such an easy goal.
Quote: (Evil and Chaos @ Oct. 06 2009, 10:58 )
600pts feels a little cheap for a Bombard company, but I guess it could be tried.
Or could be written as +50 points replace any number of guns and emplacements with bombards?
Quote:
Then you tend to end up with the odd situation of having the Light battery costing more than the Heavy battery... odd.
That is very easily fixed
With 3 gun batteries with 1-2 crew stands you might be able to get 150 + emplacements and trenches.
By moving flak to its own AA battery you then have the heavies starting at 175 + emplacements
Quote:
What would you suggest balances them against each other?
I've always seen the original Thudd Gun stats as being superior, personally.
Was an intentional mis-balanced choice, due to the desirability of AT in the army.
I think it depends if you are going with 3 or 4 gun batteries. 4 gun and 2x5+, 3 gun trickier, possibly 1x3+.
Quote: (Evil and Chaos @ Oct. 06 2009, 11:00 )
I do have plans to model a modern style (Russ hull) bombard at some point (which, funnily enough, looks a heck of a lot like the 2nd ed. Bombard, when FW made their 40k scale one they clearly based it on the old Epic: Space Marine model, not the Epic 40,000 model).
Its actually the 1st edition Adeptus Titanicus model ÂÂ
Worship my pointless mini knowledge! And yes was built on the 'crusade (made up name by me)' Leman Russ hull.
3rd edition stuck it on a chimera.
Now I believe there is actually a Chimera version in 40k but its called something else?
Quote:
Quote:
I quite like the idea of non-combat units like Trojans about the place and would love to be able to use some Atlases in the army too, though that's not sure that's worth officially bothering with for the list.
There was some spitballing early on with the Krieg list about using Atlases as engineering vehicles, but nothing ever came of it.
Deep int he mists of time when Epic games were so common it was all scenarios or semi scenario play, I was all for adding such vehicles (well my 2nd edition engineering russes) to like formations and having them as leaders to represent the repair abilities.
Don't really fit in the DK list though with its death, death, death, theme. However fit in the tank regiment (50 points) and the mech list (25 points for a 6+ trojan) well though.
_________________
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
Could Trojans be made an optional upgrade to Bombards maybe do you reckon? Wouldn't be especially useful competitively but some converted with ammo trailers would look cool on the battlefield and it would fit the background for them.
