ortron wrote:
Kyuss,
Finally got around to reading up on the latest changes. Some observations if I may...
The assault centurions seem a bit behind their devastators brothers in effectiveness. One unit has decent shooting and EA FF, whilst the assaults have a poor shooting attack and fairly avg FF and CC.
Now I haven't played with either yet but when I do I wouldn't bother with the assaults atm. I think your armour, CC/FF stats are on the money but I'd tweak the weapons load some. If your assuming three centurions to a stand, and I make that assumption based on your devastators stats, then where are their other two twin linked flames attacks and hurricane bolters? For my 2c these guys aren't the CC monsters that terminators or veteran assault marines are but rather close range FF monsters.
agreed, and you're probably right that atm the devs are better than the assaults
Quote:
As a suggestion, keep Devastators as the clear long range firepower masters but reduce their effectiveness on the engage, whilst make assault centurions the go to IF unit for clearing fortifications:
Devastator Centurions
Inf 15cm Ar: 4+RA CC: 5+ FF3+
2x TL HB 30cm AP4+
1x TL LC 45cm AT4+
1x ML 45cm AP5+/AT6+
Assault Centurions
Inf 15cm Ar: 4+RA CC: 4+ FF4+
2x TL Flamer 15cm AP4+ IC
1x TL Meltagun 15cm MW5+
Hurricane bolters (15cm) EA+1
Siege Drills (base contact) EA+1 MW
Now I realise that's a significant change to the Assault's capabilities but he is now good at the close fights whilst the devestator is best in a support role, which feels right - too me anyway
those are definitely more distinct in roles! my only question would be why have all that extra armour only to hang back and shoot? I'm happy adding the extra flamer shot to the assaults, and the hurricane bolters (as it seems that both variants have them) that way we boost the assaults to a similar level to the devs and make them worth taking, I've only seen a single batrep using them so far, let's get a few more in, then we can evaluate what changes need making, I'm happy to base off your suggested weapon loadout, although I'd really prefer to drop the meltaguns and lose the MW attack (I'm on a bit of a crusade about the large swell in availability of MW in lists!)
Quote:
I also note that this makes them pretty good stats wise, and they may require a points hike, however I'd also consider that given these guys are almost at "walking tank" status, they should be considered Light Vehicles with walker. That would help to balance them against terminators and other assault infantry types as they are now more vulnerable to AT firepower. Alternatively give them a 3+ save and do away with the RA. They're similar to terminators but terminator armour is still the best armour in the galaxy, so I have no issue with these guys having a worse save, somewhere between standard marines and terminators.
the issue I think we'll run into with making them light vehicles (and I agree they should be LV, they're the same size or bigger than Tau broadsides!!) is that LV should be based individually and I don't think a single centurion should have anywhere close to the power of a stand of three, they should also be worse than a dreadnought, which means they'd end up being 35-50 points each, easily spammed etc....
Quote:
Next point is: do we need thud guns if you already have the thunder fire? Given were talking 40k marines and not 30k, the thud gun for my mind has been superseded by the thunderfire in marine inventories. Happy with the support weapons formation/upgrades but the two versions of the same weapon seems unnecessary. You could also consider marines being able to tow (transport) a single support weapon in a rhino or land raider. Allowing the marines to use theses weapons a little more offensively and towed/internally carried infantry support weapons isn't anything unusual in real life or 40k, IIRC in 2nd ed you could tow most support weapons..
I added thudd guns in to give the IF the ability to hit the enemy deployment zone, with the removal of air assault I felt that you were restricted in being able to respond to enemy artillery or units like falcons and hammerheads, thunderfires are great, but 60cm non-indirect fire can only help you so much.... I thought that in a full-on siege defence setting that the marines might break out all the toys that they could find
I think having them be transportable is completely fine, my concern would be that adding support weapons AND rhinos to a formation, coupled with ATSKNF would make them very very hard to break and suppress, so felt that taking the platforms limits the mobility of the formation as a trade off, it also helps keep the 'defensive theme' a little by not having rapiers speeding 60cm across the table in rhinos to zap stuff!
Quote:
I'm still not 100% on the siege masters special rules! but let me come back to that in another post shortly.
thoughts and constructive criticism always welcome!
