First off, I would like a small round of applause for reading the entire 16 freaking pages this thread has generated.
Quote:
Why is it that hard to get to one set of unit stats instead of creating your own units? Is it really that impossible to agree to something?
<cough, Tau, cough>
Ok, all that aside, on to the important points/questions...
Now to set the stage I would like to say that I am primarily a SM player, dipping into a couple of IG lists when I feel like being naughty, but have been an Epic and 40K Codex SM player for quite some time. No Wolves, Angels, Templars, or any other special variant. If it's codex, it's how I've been playing.
So, when I ask questions or make comments, it is from a bog standard codex perspective.
I. As someone looking for something new, why would I want to play this list? Assuming I had an interest in trying to paint something yellow half as decently as Vaaish, what is it that should attract me to this list? I understand the fluff behind it, and I am a big fluff player, but I'm struggling a bit to see why I should pick this list to play. Where's the sizzle?
I don't intend for that to be a criticism of the list and all the efforts to date, but as a "customer" I don't think I've been sold on the new "car" because my old one still pretty much gets me by satisfactorily.
II. I'm looking at v08 and I have a couple questions/comments on the Assault terminators.
First off, I'm not sure why I would take them. The armor save is vastly weaker than what their 40K equivalent value is, which is the whole reason for taking them with the TH/SS combination. Since the TH hits last (in 40K), the SS provides a 3+ invulnerable save, thus allowing them the opportunity to shrug off most incoming fire and close with the enemy to deliver those devastating TH attacks. To further bolster this effect, they are usually transported in a Landraider to protect them from anything else nasty.
So the Inv save that is on this formation does not accurately reflect this formation ability to endure in order to close with the enemy. Initially, I liked the idea of giving the formation a TK ability, but have since come to the conclusion that it is not accurate nor necessary giving the armor save a boost. Literally, the Titan Killer formations can stand underfoot of a Reaver titan and save ANY damage on a 3+ (whether regular or invulnerable save). So, I strongly recommend a re-evaluation of this formation to more accurately reflect how they behave in the game.
As it stands now, they seem too susceptible to FF, which is quite uncharacteristic.
III. Assuming that this is intended to be a defensive list, I struggle to see where you have all the tools you need to conduct the job at hand. Ignoring 40K specific units for the moment, have you defined what it would take to successfully defend your position against an aggressive assault? (vs. the passive stance like Caesar at Alesia)
What do you think the tools ought to be? I think once you have that defined, then it might make it easier to fit the 40K formations into those slots and define whether or not they are effective at that job or need attention.
You've addressed some of these issues with the increased WW formations, but the Siege Dread was originally introduced in the Vraks campaign, which was SMs attacking, not defending.
So you have this up close and personal unit, sort of sitting back in the lines praying for someone to get close. It would seem to me that if you are going to defend your line, you'd want more shooty variants to keep them away, not necessarily lure them close...which they won't do because you want them to.
If I am building a line of defense, I don't know why I would ever choose a dread other than the shooty version.
I see your desire to provide an infantry heavy force and I don't see anything wrong with that as a design, but you'll need to be able to give the IF a way to hold the line (i.e. keep the enemy off the IF side of the board), give the enemy a good reason to attack you, have the ability to counter-attack when they inevitably get into your lines, then some way to contest part of the enemies side of the table, in order to keep the list from being more than a one or two shot list.
Using the Krieg as an example, which conceptually attempts to do some very similar things to the IF list you are attempting, they can:
1. Beat the living daylights out of the opponent with plentiful artillery
2. Hold the line with large infantry formations that are difficult to remove
3. Deep strike formations that can contest or claim objectives
4. Use all of those formations to push into the enemies side of the table
Now having said all that, what strikes as part of the challenge with this list is that it has a loose association of formations that do not perform mutually supportable functions...unless they are attacking...which seems to be the opposite purpose of the list.
So, it seems to me that the exercise should start with:
a. Ok, I'm drawing a line in the sand "here" (speaking figuratively)
b. They're coming from that direction through here
c. My initial line of defense has this and this and this
d. Assuming they breach my line, I'm going to do this...
e. I will disrupt their attack by...
f. I will do the happy dance on their corpses when I've done this...
A little more humorously, the list doesn't appear to know what it wants to be when it grows up.
IV. Sentry guns - They are a red herring. If you happened to get them right would they correct all the other issues? I don't think so. Focus on the big rocks.
And for the record, Sentry guns are immobile once deployed. They are roughly 3/4 the size of a rhino and with no wheeled carriage to transport them, you're left with Thawk transporters as the only viable choice. Not going to happen during a battle. They are used for screening and bolstering an occupied position.
Apologies for the big brain dump, but after pouring all that thread into the very little space between my ears, something had to leak out.
Cheers,
