Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Has anyone tried 3 Warhound squadrons? Is it worth the points?

In what maniple? With venator you often have 3-4 warhounds anyway and that is trio of very hard to take down titans. Especially if you use the 2+ special save thing...(albeit that carries it's risks but that squadron can be super hard to take down). And of course that's lots of firepower and fairly reliable orders with +2 to command.

edit: wait a sec. only venator can do that so ignore the question.

Like what's better in a Venator, two pairs of Warhounds or one triple squadron? Is the shield bubble mechanic with 3 worth it?

I could roll this out myself but I'm curious if anyone is doing it. I also don't always do maniples in my lists given points.

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Like what's better in a Venator, two pairs of Warhounds or one triple squadron? Is the shield bubble mechanic with 3 worth it?

I could roll this out myself but I'm curious if anyone is doing it. I also don't always do maniples in my lists given points.

Personally I would go with two pairs, since you usually want to have tactical flexibility and unless your game is in a very weird situation, you have more than one relevant target anyway. With two pairs making concentrated attacks, you're not losing any potential damage from the bonus but gain in options as you can benefit from shield sharing while taking more than a fistful of space on the board. Warhounds want to flank anyway, it is easier if you force your opponent to turn and track you.

The maniple of three is easier to command, however, as a larger pack gets +2 instead of +1 when given squadron commands, but... eh, I think it would be pretty rare to give three the same order every turn.

This game is deeper than people think.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Like what's better in a Venator, two pairs of Warhounds or one triple squadron? Is the shield bubble mechanic with 3 worth it?

I could roll this out myself but I'm curious if anyone is doing it. I also don't always do maniples in my lists given points.

Personally I would go with two pairs, since you usually want to have tactical flexibility and unless your game is in a very weird situation, you have more than one relevant target anyway. With two pairs making concentrated attacks, you're not losing any potential damage from the bonus but gain in options as you can benefit from shield sharing while taking more than a fistful of space on the board. Warhounds want to flank anyway, it is easier if you force your opponent to turn and track you.

The maniple of three is easier to command, however, as a larger pack gets +2 instead of +1 when given squadron commands, but... eh, I think it would be pretty rare to give three the same order every turn.

What you do lose though is extra survivability. Difference between 3 shielded warhounds vs 2 is quite big. Even more if you play like so that you CAN split shield drops but don't have to but can put all on one warhound.

Also the 4th warhound can be in different range bracket all together. I like twin inferno warhound but having him in squadron means the other has to get in close as well. With 3+1 the inferno gun can roam freely heading for rear while others can stay on their ideal range band.

Ok bit of a long post from me now:

I have an AT tournament coming up in a couple of weeks, have only played a couple of trial games using the Warlord+Knights from the GM box, but have since expanded my Legio into the following:

- 2x Warlords
- 1x Reaver
- 2x Warhounds
- 6x Knights

The tournament uses the following rules:
- 1250-1750pts with underdog margin at 200pts
- One maniple required
- 3 Command Points
- WYSIWIG not enforced so all weapons can be used.

Now I've come up with the following list and need some feedback on it as well as on general tactics:

Myrmidon Maniple
Warlord Titan
- Apocalypse Missile Launchers
- Belicosa
- Sunfury

Warlord Titan
- Apocalypse Missile Launchers
- Quake Cannon
- Sunfury

Reaver Titan
- Apocalypse Launcher
- Gatling Blaster
- Laser Blaster

Warhound Squadron
- Turbo Laser/Plasma
- Turbo Laser/Vulcan

Alltogether this comes to 1705pts so I have a bit of room for expansion. The idea I had in mind was to use my CP for a Void Relay and castle the Warlords around it for re-rollable Void saves, and since they won't be moving I can make full use of Split/First Fire which goes off on 2+ thanks to the Myrmidon. Reaver will support the Warhounds.

I like the idea of it but I think it may fail when going against Knights. In my trial games I saw how effective Knights can be if they get too close, and while their shooting is generally mediocre, if they get a Charge order off they can just wreck a Warlord in one go. With that in mind I'm wondering if it may be worth dropping something for some Knights, but I'm a bit clueless about it.

Any help is appreciated.

Another issue you run into is that your warlords will soon be out of targets for missiles(basically after enemy moves) and soon enough for missile guns. "I won't be moving" doesn't really work that well with corridor weapons. Doubly more so if there's decent terrain there.

Reaver with fist btw is good knight deterrent

Would the Reaver be able to catch up with the Knights though? They're pretty nippy, I can imagine them just skirting around the Reaver or getting round the flanks pretty easily.

Fair point about the Void Relay, I had forgotten that turning technically counts as moving so they can be easily outmaneuvered. Would it be viable in that case to just keep one Warlord back as a fire-support? With longer-ranged weapons such as the Quake and Belicosa it may be a good unit to finish off ones without shields?

If they are snipping around they aren't charging the warlord now would they? Every time they keep snipping around warlords is extra turn(and AT doesn't have unlimited turns) warlord can shoot at impunity.

One reaver basically creates 11" long area with 135 degree(but it's pretty hard to get straight to rear of reaver. If they come from flank you can rotate as well and from front to rear isn't easy) or so coverage where knights do not want to enter. Knights have 12" but getting everybody more than 11" and max 12" is pretty hard especially without premeasurement.(if you are really good at measuring by eye you could expose your reaver to 1 or 2 knight and tempt them to charge you. Sure you take some damage but that draws them ready for volcano cannon. That's one way I have dealt with knights. Put reaver somewhere where some but not all can charge them and another reaver or warlord lobs them with volcano cannon. If they don't bite it...Well that's why the bait reaver also has good knight busting gun like volcano cannon or melta cannon)

Idea wouldn't be so much chase them around than force him to deal with the reaver first if he wants to charge the warlord.

Bodyguard. Not roaming hunter.

So as a general idea, would one Warlord at the back and the other advancing with Reaver bodyguard be better in this case?

That's how I have been playing my warlords at least with 2 warlord lists. With 3 it's backfield+2 forward moving(one possibly more of a midrange and one that's real up close and personal. This is about only time I even consider the power claw).

You might also want to consider a banner of anti-Knight Knights to keep any of the little blighters off your back.

If you want anti knight knights lancers are best for points vs knights and warlords. Twin cc questors are better vs warhounds and reavers

What would be the best way to incorporate some Knights into my list? The only thing I can think of is dropping either a Reaver or Warlord. Dropping the Reaver may leave the Warlords a bit unprotected but dropping a Warlord looks like it may be too much a loss of firepower, unless I go for the full 6x Knights but that may be too much in terms of modelling as I only have one built at the moment.

Well 6 with twin cc's is 285 which is only bit more than warhound's will be so replacing warhound is also option. Warlord can give you almost 1=1 4 lancers and 4 questors with twin cc's.

Sure you will lose on firepower but archieve fast moving small(easy to hide) models that will make mincemeat of titans in cc. Warlord can survive frontal charge from questors but if lancers charge and warlord can't move out of range it will be mincemeat.

Q is thus do you want guns or h2h titan busters. Lot depends on your terrain. Also keep in mind even lone small fast model can be useful for scenarios.

Ok so had my first tournament today, 3 games of 1750pts with a 200 underdog margin. I ran the following list.

Myrmidon Maniple
Warlord Titan
- Apocalypse Launchers
- Belicosa Cannon
- Sunfury Plasma

Warlord Titan
- Laser Blasters
- Sunfury Plasma
- Quake Cannon

Reaver Titan
- Apocalypse Launcher
- Gatling Blaster
- Laser Blaster

2x Warhound Titans
- Vulcan Bolter
- Turbo Laser


3 games and I came dead last out of 10. This was partly due to apocalyptic bad luck (despite my Myrmidon getting orders off on 2+, not once did I have a turn with more than one order). I was pretty much tabled in all three games and only managed to take down 5x Knights, a Reaver and a Warhound throughout the whole day. But I've learned a lot from my losses.

1: Weapons - I thought to diversify my weapons a bit to avoid reactor damage with my Belicosa Cannons but one just wasn't enough.

2: Mobility - 2 Warlords are just too slow despite their toughness. My final game was against 4x Warhounds and they were just running circles around me. Funnily enough my Warhounds blew themselves up thanks to really crappy reactor rolls.

Shifting some stuff around I've come up with a different list, any ideas?


Axiom Maniple
Warlord Titan
- Belicosa Cannon
- Belicosa Cannon
- Apocalypse Launchers

Reaver Titan
- Apocalypse Launcher
- Laser Blaster
- Gatling Blaster

2x Warhound Titans
- 2x Plasma Blastguns

5x Knights
- 3x Battle Cannons
- 2x Thermal Cannons


Thoughts?

 Valkyrie wrote:


3 games and I came dead last out of 10. This was partly due to apocalyptic bad luck (despite my Myrmidon getting orders off on 2+, not once did I have a turn with more than one order). I was pretty much tabled in all three games and only managed to take down 5x Knights, a Reaver and a Warhound throughout the whole day. But I've learned a lot from my losses.

Well it's only first fire order on 2+ and thing with that is you don't always even have targets front of titan so you often need to turn. Only your 1st, 3rd and 5th first fire orders(if all start turn with target in arc) will be 100% quaranteed to be usable first fire. And that doesn't mean you will have target for combat phase...

You don't neccessarily even WANT that first fire order all the time. Bigger impact is simply having heaviest gear. Maniple is more of nice bonus over it.

1: Weapons - I thought to diversify my weapons a bit to avoid reactor damage with my Belicosa Cannons but one just wasn't enough.

Sunfury should be pretty good alternative though. Don't think that was the issue.

2: Mobility - 2 Warlords are just too slow despite their toughness. My final game was against 4x Warhounds and they were just running circles around me. Funnily enough my Warhounds blew themselves up thanks to really crappy reactor rolls.

You need to really keep eye on those reactors. I have more or less stopped pushing extra speed/turns. Which albeit makes it not so mobile compared to reaver that can push more freely.

Both warhounds have twin plasma? Seems your maniple is voewfully short in shield strippers with just 3 weapons(warlord carapace, reaver carapace, gatling blaster) for serious shield stripping. Especially now with titandeath coming up where you can expect more of three warhound squadrons(maybe 2...) or warlord+warhound or two squadrons which will simply eat up that firepower and barely notice it.

Something I noticed is that BOTH your lists are fairly low on good shield strippers. Note that the laser weapons, despite shield bane rule, aren't really dedicated shield strippers and are outperformed by apocalypse launchers for that usage. It's more of "can be used to strip shields and hurt shieldless". But too much of those are going to leave you thin on serious shield strippers. In particularly I'm not fan of warlord carapace laser blasters. 6 shots isn't that much, -1 to hit beyond 16" and except against other warlords can't shoot within 10". I'm much more fan of gatling blasters with their 12 shots(which can also dent armour a bit) and no -1 to hit at range. Albeit that's still not out so until that I would stick with apoc. Or rest of your force needs to account for that. Keep in mind if you are always shooting that at shields YOU ARE WASTING IT! You would be better off with apoc launcher. IF you take laser blasters you must use it to hurt shieldless titan. I think it's better if you have the macro gatling blaster arm weapon for example which is better shield stripper generally. Or rest of titans need to sport more shield busters.