kyussinchains wrote:
tbh I don't want to add trenches back in to the list, but felt they were worth including for the other bonuses
I like them but I think they, and a large part of the defensive emplacement stuff, should just be freebies that come off, screen the bastions. e.g. they are free but must connect as a network together.
kyussinchains wrote:
the IS5+ represents how the marines are expert at using every inch of cover within a bunker, with added boltholes/panic rooms/automated defences/shielding and other clever bits the guard probably don't use or can't afford
Oh I get it. I'm just trying to flip the script here and try and leverage the tools we have now in interesting ways to avoid army wide special rules if we can.
One less thing to remember. The issue I have with straight up IS is that sorry, no bunker, even one as cunningly wrought as the IF can is going to survive a direct from say a Volcano cannon or at least in on piece. Basically there's a level of ability that is needed that is above the normal and able to take MW and regular hits but still is vulnerable to say TK. This is why a few pages back I suggested automatically adding RA to any units in them. I should point out that IS5+ basically makes them better in all ways possible to the Bastion, it being a WE.
kyussinchains wrote:
I feel going down the war engines route makes the formation more vulnerable as people will simply target the engine rather than the marines, it makes them vulnerable to pinpoint attacks which can destroy their cover
Ummm I hate to sound contrary mate but that's exact what a besieging army actually would do
Also, targeting two tactical stands in a bunker with my pinpoint attacks is certainly a possibility but that's a lot of overkill for pretty much zilch effect. I'll point out I can already do that against the bastions soo....
I'll concede that less WE is better so then =>
Really the thing about an army attacking is that you know they're out there in their defenses, you know where those are, but you don't know where IN those the troops are. I think that allows a more elegant modeling of the IF abilities of defense, deception, bolt holes, traps, etc.
My take woud be
-Cumplusary Bastions. Each bastion gets 15-30cm of trenchs and bunker or two, for free
--Razorwire, tank traps, etc for nominal fee
-Trenches are standard cover and prevent ANY cross-fire bonus and maybe grant first strike?
-Bunkers are terrain and work like trenches but grant RA to those inside instead
-For every 1000 points, a siege unit may give up transports for hidden deployment in one of the siegeworks. This location must be noted before placement of any "normal" units. They remain hidden until they move, fire, or an enemy comes withint 15cm. This will realllllly slow up my advance, as the attacker as I need to be cognizant of where I might stir up a nest of hornets if I just walk into a trap. Right now I know exactly where they are and can just advance without fear.
-I'd like to see some form of Breaker units added as an upgrade to tacticals. Better at FF and defense but no long range shooty (or 15-20cm shooty instead e.g. dump the ML for something else)
-Some type of rear guard bolt hole/redoubt option. This would allow you to "pop" troops up once the enemy passes to harass them. Reading all the sieges in the new HH books talks of the IW and the DG doing this repeatedly.
-legion style Arty. WW are teh sux
-Vehicle firing positions
-Revisit the tweaked victory conditions.
--Attacker double points for Blitz but T&H objectives must be first on a bastion (again makes the IF player WANT to take defenses).
--IF get double points for TSNP but nothing for BTS
