Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next

Discussion on LatD changes

 Post subject: Re: Discussion on LatD changes
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:14 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4893
Location: North Yorkshire
Yes, quite a few changes. I am still keeping with the 'no traitor' theme, but this time used:

Coven + Arch Heretic, Replace with Big Mutants (2), Land Transporters & Daemon Pack
Coven + Additional Cultist (1), Replace with Big Mutants (3), Chaos Altar & Daemon Pack
Coven + Replace with Big Mutants (2), Chaos Altar & Daemon Pack
Coven + Land Transporters & Daemon Pack
Infestation - Zombies
Subjugators (2) - BTS
Hellfire Cannons
Defilers
Defilers
Daemon Pool - Lesser Daemons (12)

Used BL Defiler profiles & costs. LatD still gor beaten up quite badly, but this time had the speed and range to cause more damage & the infestation helped disrupt the back line which had been untouched in my game against the Marines. Only faced a pair of Thunderbolts, which stayed clear of the Altars. Game was helped with the LatD recovering all their broken formations at the end of turn 2 and Ulani failing two activations in turn 3 to hold objectives.

Will probably continue with this list for a bit to see if it was just luck on the last game.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on LatD changes
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:21 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:51 pm
Posts: 582
How did you find the Hellfire cannons worked for you btw? I have been having trouble using mine well.

_________________
My EPIC and BFG Blog: https://epicaddiction.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on LatD changes
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:20 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4893
Location: North Yorkshire
Not too bad. They garrisoned in cover on overwatch. LatD got first turn and they activated to shoot at a formation of Tank Hunters in cover. 3 hits, 1 dead Tank Hunter and the formation broke (further TH lost to difficult terraine test :( ) Return fire was limited as there were better targets to hit.

I tend to use the formation in a garrisoned position sat on overwatch and if they survive I snipe at small formations or use them to prep for another formation to engage. A steal at 200pts, but not a must take formation with Defilers having equal range and better CC/FF.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on LatD changes
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:14 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:31 pm
Posts: 948
Location: Nottingham, UK
Removing traitor elements takes away certain key units, and removes flavour from the list. I don't really see any value in doing this myself.

_________________
Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on LatD changes
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:30 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
Irisado wrote:
Removing traitor elements [snip] removes adds flavour from to the list.


FIFY.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on LatD changes
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:02 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4893
Location: North Yorkshire
Irisado wrote:
Removing traitor elements takes away certain key units, and removes flavour from the list. I don't really see any value in doing this myself.

And this is the purpose of this exercise, to see if the LatD can be effective without the need of key traitor units. Currently if I wanted to stop a Cultist army before it started I would make sure that they couldn't gain access to Hydras or Thunderbolts. Are there any other traitor units that you would say are key to the LatD list?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on LatD changes
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:51 pm
Posts: 582
I find the traitor artillery to be exceptionally useful to the LatD

_________________
My EPIC and BFG Blog: https://epicaddiction.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on LatD changes
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:31 pm
Posts: 948
Location: Nottingham, UK
Ulrik wrote:
Irisado wrote:
Removing traitor elements [snip] removes adds flavour from to the list.


FIFY.


You're not going to convince me that you have a very good case if all you're going to do is modify my quote, and type out an acronym when you could have written a full sentence, and gone into some detail as to how removing options adds flavour.

Tiny-Tim wrote:
And this is the purpose of this exercise, to see if the LatD can be effective without the need of key traitor units. Currently if I wanted to stop a Cultist army before it started I would make sure that they couldn't gain access to Hydras or Thunderbolts. Are there any other traitor units that you would say are key to the LatD list?


I appreciate the purpose of the exercise, but I'm saying that it just doesn't seem right to me to remove options from the list.

As for your question about other Traitor units, I would point you in the direction of Chimeras and Rough Riders. Both units are exceptionally useful in my lists. Rough Riders are great for spreading out to screen other units, while Chimeras are simply a better transport than Land Transporters, and are far more characterful in my opinion too (i.e. the Land Transporter is as boring as it sounds). Also, even though I don't them, Basilisks could be useful for LatD armies, given that they don't exactly have a lot of barrage weaponry/fire support to call upon.

The case for removing Traitor units is pretty weak in my view. All I've really seen put forward is a rather lacklustre argument about LatD having too many options. Having lots of options caters for lots of tastes. Just leave it alone and let players decide for themselves which type of LatD army they want to field is my advice.

_________________
Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on LatD changes
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:11 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
Irisado wrote:
Having lots of options caters for lots of tastes. Just leave it alone and let players decide for themselves which type of LatD army they want to field is my advice.


The problem is that this goes directly against the design goals of epic. Several, more focused lists, over one big do-it-all list. A list that can represent a traitor guard regiment, a cult that has risen up on a hive world AND an incursion from a daemon world is very unfocused.

How did that cult get Silver Towers? Why is the daemon world force using Hydras and Basilisks when the rest of the force is a chaotic mishmash of warped daemon engines and mutants who have lived directly under the chaos gods for millennia?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on LatD changes
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:38 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:31 pm
Posts: 948
Location: Nottingham, UK
Ulrik wrote:
The problem is that this goes directly against the design goals of epic. Several, more focused lists, over one big do-it-all list. A list that can represent a traitor guard regiment, a cult that has risen up on a hive world AND an incursion from a daemon world is very unfocused.


Epic EA was meant to be a compromise between Space Marine and Epic 40K. The LatD list as it currently stands is a classic form of that compromise. You have the old level of variety from the Renegades supplement, but you have the more streamline rules of the current system applied to it. This is the best of both worlds from where I'm sitting.

The LatD force always has been a rag bag assortment of traitors, daemons, and cultists. This is what it's supposed to be. By removing any of these elements you effectively undermine the raison d'être behind the army.


Quote:
How did that cult get Silver Towers? Why is the daemon world force using Hydras and Basilisks when the rest of the force is a chaotic mishmash of warped daemon engines and mutants who have lived directly under the chaos gods for millennia?


All questions which players can answer within the narrative which they devise for their army list. For example, my list involves the Cultists and Traitors summoning daemons to aid them in their conquest of a world where they have turned against their fellow Guardsmen and rebelled.

All you require to get it to work is a bit of imagination.

_________________
Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on LatD changes
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:42 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4893
Location: North Yorkshire
Irisado wrote:
I appreciate the purpose of the exercise, but I'm saying that it just doesn't seem right to me to remove options from the list.

Well I haven't decided that the list will be chopped up or not as yet, but I'm looking at options and giving it some tests. & I will repeat that it is what is lacking from a list which makes it interesting to play.

Two games played this weekend vs different Marine players one win, one loss (on points) Thoughts later.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on LatD changes
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:33 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:51 pm
Posts: 582
Tiny-Tim wrote:
I will repeat that it is what is lacking from a list which makes it interesting to play.


I disagree with this. In the same manner, the possibilities contained within a wide-ranging list make it interesting to play for me, and much more interesting to collect.

If you want to play with a tightly themed army, just impose limitations on your own list building rather than changing the core list.

_________________
My EPIC and BFG Blog: https://epicaddiction.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on LatD changes
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:40 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4893
Location: North Yorkshire
So over this weekend I got two games in with the LatD. Both games were against Marine lists but with very different emphasises. The first game was versus a ground based force with 8 Land Raiders (acting as transports) and several Razorbacks and Hunters. Game finished after three turns with the LatD winning 2-0 with Defend the Flag and They Shall Not Pass. The game should probably have gone into the fourth turn, but my opponent was not aggressive enough with his forces to push me back.

Second game was against AgingHippy and his Marine force with a Warlord.... I was playing with a pair of Subjugators, which could have caused the Warlord some trouble, but was not prepared to leave them in a position to engage at the end of turn as they were my BTS and I didn’t want the Warlord firing on them. The game turned into a bit of a ‘Cat and Mouse’ with the LatD hiding behind or in cover and snipping at Marine formation which came in range whilst manoeuvring to stay away from the Warlord’s fire. I was playing with two Chaos Altars to give me a decent AA presence, but managed to fail a difficult terrain test with the first move of one of them only for AH to roll a critical and destroy it. Luckily only two further units were lost to the critical effect. The game went to four turns and ended 1-1. On points count back the Marines won convincingly as I had not been able to touch the Warlord and AH’s Thunderhawk and Thunderbolts, whilst most of my formations were down to half strength, broken or both.

Thoughts from the games: I really like the Chaos Altar and it provides a big boost to a coven, but as an AA platform it is really poor. For the cost of the two Altars in my list I can take 6 Hydras (Although more likely, I would take 3 Hydras and a pair of Thunderbolts.) Covens are given a boost by the increased summoning, focus & inspirational aspects, but Altars are not a substitute for Hydras.

Defilers are going to undergo a change from their current LatD stats & cost. My feelings at the moment to follow the lead of the NetEA BL list and use that profile although AgingHippy did note that he liked the EpicUK LatD stats & cost from our previous game more than the NetEA BL. I would like to hear some battle reports from others trying these stats out to help me make up my mind.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion on LatD changes
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:04 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4893
Location: North Yorkshire
Rug wrote:
If the traitor guard stuff goes I'd argue that there was an equally strong case to remove Land Transporters; taking the argument to an extreme anything with any kind of firearm.

I'm afraid that I only go as far as dummy (pacifier for those on the other side of the drink) spitting or toy throwing & I need a new pram for that. ;D


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net