GlynG wrote:
Why do you have the notion that Salamanders are necessarily a low activation army Chris? It's not the case. If you were to take loads of upgrades all over the place then maybe, but if you use them in moderation then there are loads of possible Salamanders lists with 12 or more activations at 3k.
To make use of "salamander" units you are likely to have less activations, your own list above, whilst high on activations, makes use of 875pts of restricted units to pad out your actications (scouts x3, assault & speeders) then on that you have thunderbolts. Nothing wrong with that, RAW, but I'd argue that is not in line with the list intent/theme.
GlynG wrote:
Given that Salamanders have distinctly slower reaction speeds that other SMs (they have initiative 3 in 40k rather than 4, which makes a significant difference in combat with many others striking before they can) maybe the list should have strategy rating 4 to represent this in epic?
I'm not claiming Salamanders are less strategic, but that their slow reactions mean in practice they are a lot slower to implement their plans and to react to changing circumstances on the battlefield than other SMs.
GlynG, Mate I think you making a bit much out of their slower reaction speeds. They were only I3 in one version of the salamanders list, and that got removed from 5th ed onwards. At the individual level, a salamander is still more than capable against standard humans and other faster foes.
At a tactical and operational level, I've read or seen no fluff or reasoning that suggest they are any slower to deploy or react than other SM elm (happy to be proven otherwise). In fact their reliance on superior technology and lower numbers would likely grant them an advantage in this regard.
Quote:
I think SR4 would be extremely appropriate for the Salamanders list and would be keen to see it changed. There's precedent for SR varying in sublists with Ulthwe having SR5 rather than Biel-tann's 4.
Unless someone provides strong supporting evidence other than a slightly slower than normal SM physical reaction speed (hahah GW fluff..) to support this, I strongly disagree.
Quote:
What?!? Noooo!!! Don't you dare drop it. The Land Raider Redeemer is my favourite thing in the list. It's a great tank as is and doesn't need to be air assaulted to be used at all.
Agreed, the vehicle is one of the more characterful additions to the list, more so that the helios. It is however rather situational in its effectiveness. Against an slow moving inf heavy opponent this tank is quite good. Against Tank/Titan heavy lists it is somewhat disadvantaged.
In my experience it works well in tactical and vindicator formations, pairing it with longer range units like devastators, standard landraiders etc causes a mobility/firepower mismatch that impacts on their effectiveness.
Short of dropping it in via landing craft (which incurs a huge price rise?), I ran them with vindicators. Often taking a double to get within 15cm for a bunch of AP shots hitting on 4s and then retain with an assault element to draw on their good supporting fire. Similar to BA Baal preadators, just they are better at this due to their increased speed.
Don't see a need to change the unit, just their availablity to a tactical formation should be improved (so you can take 3 without affecting the ability to take a hunter for example)
Quote:
The Deathstar formation is nasty with 16 x AP 3/4+ ignore cover shots and 8 x FF 3+ ignore cover attacks. It was a fun list and I want to try it again some time
It did well and I won the game, despite going up against the tough match up of a Titan Legion. Maybe Redeemers don't suit your playstyle or something Chris but I'm definitely happy with them at their current stats and using them a lot - leave them as is please!
They can double 50cm and still put out a torrent of fire, so should be hard for enemies to avoid for long. If you're having problems with higher activation enemies avoiding you and pouncing late turn after you've run out of activations, then why not run a fairly high activation army yourself? There are loads of viable Salamanders lists with 12 activations or more.
Sure, it CAN be nasty, and I did this once or twice to Sethanon and Cal, but even at a double, its effective threat range is really only 65-70cm if you include 5cm dismount for the terminators. On the other hand a warlord/reaver titan - at similar points - can generate a similar number of shots, significantly better AT/MW firepower, as many FF attacks, is more resilient generally to BM and fire, and has a threat range of 90cm+ generally.
So I'm not saying its a crap formation, its not, but it lacks the flexibility that other expensive formations have. The quality players in my gaming group very quickly identified the threat of these units within 15-30cm and target them from a distance, avoid them or ZOC screen them with something cheap. In a 3k game this sort of units is going to either drastically decrease activation count or require you to pad out the list with stuff like scouts, assaults and tbolts (all of which aren't really characterful for a salamanders list)
Quote:
I agree with your list of other changes, with the exception of 'Hunter at 50?'. Hunters cost 75 and shouldn't be cheaper here. Nor should Salamanders have cheaper than normal characters. I approve of Thunderhawks being 250 too, wouldn't want to see them go down.
Hunters remain at 75pts - agreed
Characters as standard SM lists, ie 50/100pts - agreed
Thunderhawks - don't see how salamanders need to pay a 25% points increase over other lists, even SW only pay 25pt extra and their landing craft the same cost? I guess each group will have its own meta but the thunderhawk air assaults haven't proven to be OTT in our group. We all typically run a decent AA capability due to vampires, ork landers etc. For my money the most effective air drop unit will be the Devs + salamanders Devs upgrade + librarian and maybe a MM dread. Including the thunderhawk thats 700pts! And what can it do: Air assault its generating 2x FF4, 4xFF3, 2x FF4 MW and 1x FF3 MW + dread (CC4+CC4MW or a FF4 MW) for and avg of (3.67 normal hits and 2.17 MW hits) . Landing & shooting its generating 4x AP4, 1x AP/AT4, 8x AP5/AT6, 5x MW5. (avg of 5.17 AP hits and 1.66 MW hits against an inf target, 1.83 AT hits and 1.66 MW hits against AV targets, and somewhere in between against a mixed force)
Similarly a Codex marine thunderhawk with terminators and chaplain can generate (3.67 normal hits and 3.33MW hits in an air assault) and comes in at 600pts Vs 700pts. It is also more likely to save return attacks and win the assault due to inspiring and lower casualties.
Shooting it generates (5.17 AP hits against all inf or 3.17 AT hits against all AV) so similar but doesn't generate MW shots but more effective over ranges of 15cm.
This is turning into a bit of a rant, but I'm not sure why the salamanders units - once all the upgrades are costed in - need to be punished in the thunderhawk or landing craft cost (+50/+75!pts). Either roll the cost into the upgrades themselves, since they seem to be the issue, or consider that other marine lists can generate similar effects through other mechanisms for cheaper.