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.

I'm pondering if we will ever see Breacher teams, despoilers etc

I have to imagine that we will, eventually. If GW can make a model of it and sell it, they eventually will, especially long term once they've run through a lot of the vehicle options.

Hopefully we’ll get a Recon Company. That’d be pretty cool.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Hopefully we’ll get a Recon Company. That’d be pretty cool.

and with sniper abilities pretty useful too, small, likely easily killed unless they get something like they cannot be targeted outside a certain range

hmm. I've actually got some Mk II recon dudes in 28mm that could perhaps print to 8mm, not game purpose as yet except maybe as an objective marker

I was meaning Scouty Type Gubbins. Speeders, Bikes, Jetbikes, Speeder Bikes, Bikejets, Speeder Jets and that.

I honestly don’t know if we’ll see Breachers and Destroyers. I wouldn’t say No to them, but at this scales would it work? Not just in the units acting distinctly enough, but being visibly different on the board.

I’ve already painted the rim of the Plasma Gunners to stand out more, so I’m not opposed to that approach. But I do have concerns the game itself just isn’t suited to such specialist infantry.

maybe not, I am looking forwards to speeders, jet bikes, bikes and other such light recce stuff

and wondering what the "light armour" slot will end up with

@Mad doc: Both Breachers & Destroyers have models to print, and rules in EA30k. Breachers are easily identifiable on the board, Destroyers not so much.

I have some on my desk, awaiting LI rules. Might play them as tacticals/Ass Marines until then, just because they are cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:


and wondering what the "light armour" slot will end up with

Sabre light tanks. Small, cool af imo. Available to print already, probably coming in plastic later since they have that slot.

I can see Breachers being rules suited to clearing out buildings, as that’s about as close to a boarding action as we’ll likely get for LI’s scale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I guess Destroyers could be Assault Equivalent, but able to render area terrain Dangeous or something with Rad Bombs or what have you.

Phosbex rule for breachers would accomplish that one

SU-152 wrote:

I wonder why you think that....

Well, y'know...because reasons, dude!

The 40K audience is far greater than that of 30K, and the effort thus far would have attracted far more scrutiny and scorn. I honestly don't believe we'd have enough cheese for that amount of whine.

The other reason is that 30K tends to be more popular on the narrative side, where players are generally more forgiving. Thats at least how I find them...

leopard wrote:
100% agree on scatter terrain being needed, stuff to slow movement, obstacles that can provide cover

One key thing to keep in mind that's actually pretty crucial about the obstacle rules is the units having to make base contact. One thing the obstacles rules sorely lacks is a method to split the wound pool like with area terrain between models getting and models in the open. The area terrain rules are not perfect but expedient, you basically as attack get to decided to only target the models in the detachment in he open, limiting the wound pool, or they all get -1 to hit. It's not a perfect solution but it keeps it consistent with area terrain. Also combats the sillyness of 1 base out of 16 touching and behind an obstacle gifting -1 to 15 models in the open


For my own boards I'm focusing building/acquiting barricade style obstacles. Basically the ruin box came with 3 little sections of defense line, and I want more stuff like that, basically low cover/walls style stuff you'd see in 40k/30k just smaller.

Right now the meta, because the most common order is advance and first fire is a bit lacking, is basically hide behind los blocking terrain, pre measure a lot, when you think something might be in your range, move out and hope to activate frist when it comes to shooting.

But a lot of reason for not seeing first fire in our games, other than it not being the only order that lets you overwatch as it should be imo, is that other than tanks, there's very little reason to rank up and move your infantry other other shorter to mid range units into a line. This is also why Iaugh about static play because half the armies in the game don't even have ground transports yet and the most common order is move and shoot lol. But other than the lack of longer sections of low cover ideal for infantry and tanks to get a -1 to hit on my boards currently, there aren't really any weapons that require a detachment to not move, so that also sorta skews terrain more towards playing peekaboo with los blocking terrain.

I think we're actually fortunate to alll see the game at a phase where many only have predominantly civitas structures to make a board. Because it shows the folly of that too, of not having like a healthy mix of terrain types. The terrain rules are interseting like that, as its a much older approach this isn't quite telling players to make their own terrain, but it's obvious for all to see that things like area terrain are not 100% slam dunks the way gw would have you play them, making weird implied areas of terrain delineated by ruin corners. I've seen the odd game using the occasional piece of area terrain but it hasn't been common because outside of the aos trees that are way too tall, gw doesn't really sell area terrain. It's more of a battlefield in a box thing.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 westiebestie wrote:
@Mad doc: Both Breachers & Destroyers have models to print, and rules in EA30k. Breachers are easily identifiable on the board, Destroyers not so much.

I have some on my desk, awaiting LI rules. Might play them as tacticals/Ass Marines until then, just because they are cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:


and wondering what the "light armour" slot will end up with

Sabre light tanks. Small, cool af imo. Available to print already, probably coming in plastic later since they have that slot.

I think your review is pretty spot on, I'd only take one exception and that's that the formations don't actually limit very much without limiting the total number of formations a player can take. This is because they're very loose, example, I could field a formation for solar aux that is all of 70pts, just to get an extra commander, conversely I could field a single detachment that is over 3000 points and its made up entirely of baneblades and leman russes. Some formations are broken in conception, the pioneer company just lets a whole swathe of solar aux infiltrate. You're absolutely correct that the legions traits aren't created remotely equal, well that formation basically make solar aux able to be raven guard. Limiting formations won't fix all the other issues, especially the a and b options stuff, which you are definitely correct is a glaringly obvious problem esp with contemptors and prtending kheres is anywhere near an accurate lascannon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SamusDrake wrote:

SU-152 wrote:

I wonder why you think that....

Well, y'know...because reasons, dude!

The 40K audience is far greater than that of 30K, and the effort thus far would have attracted far more scrutiny and scorn. I honestly don't believe we'd have enough cheese for that amount of whine.

The other reason is that 30K tends to be more popular on the narrative side, where players are generally more forgiving. Thats at least how I find them...

I honestly am very glad it's not 40k and multiple factions, gw never could fight the temptation to make xenos have some sorta janky nonsense that just messses a little too much with the core rules, A great example, i'd have been fine with bfg only ever being imp vs chaos/traitors, it was when the eldar and necrons showed up that they just were too damn broken or had far to involved rules like eldar ships and the sun edge ect.

The real benefit of the 30k setting and limited factions with a lot of overlap is like with titanicus, the whole player base generally gets to benefit from a new book/release. A lot less jealousy because any new unit that performs well, isn't locked away from anyone, it's an allie chart away from being taken in their own army.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 westiebestie wrote:



I'm a handful of games in, maximum 1500p yet. So far liking it a lot even though it has its issues.

Here are some quick lessons our group has learned so far (only Astartes vs Astartes yet).

-Playing tactically for the Scenario at hand is rewarded
-Going overly aggressive to score VPs turn 1 is punished by Divide & Conquer and the other player has so far swing round and won for us (not yet tested infiltrate, this is with turn 1 March/air deployed assault marines. Infiltrate is stronger, so looking forward to facing that, except maybe in Retrieve & Forward Push)
-Overwatch is crucial, it's much easier to stop Infantry/transports BEFORE they can garrison
-Buildings within 3" of an Objective are a death trap. They go down easily. So far I've stayed maximum 1-2 turns in a Garrison, using Transports to redeplpy before it collapses
-Point Defence is a strong ability both in Overwatch & firing out of sequence/split fire
-Flyers deal pain but are taken out easily by weight of fire since everything can shoot at them (boo)
-Reaver is a bit too strong at 1500p, where not enough detachments are available to strip its Shields & overwhelm it. We'll probably leave it to 2000+ and go for a Warhound next time round.
-Knight Questoris are pretty deadly but also far from Invulnerable
-A & B weapon choices for the same points cost aren't balanced at all. Case in point Contemptors, TLLC is crazily betterer than AssCans.

Here's my review & Comparison with EA30K/EpicAU 30k that I really like.

I will update after bigger games and any Erratas and if course once we get more complete army lists with core transports & artillery.


Rules 8/10
Balance 5/10
Weighted 7.5/10

+Good terrain rules that really affect gameplay, same as EA30k, but also terrain that you can affect (by targeting structures)
+Balancing mechanics built into Army building, Formations limiting what you can take to limit spam & Strategic assets being limited
+Detachments with higher initial cost and reduced expansion cost forces you to choose if you want more activations or larger Formations/Detachments that are harder to break
+Multiple Victory Condition scenarios
+Objective Control/Tactical Strength values is a good mechanic
+Scale rules, larger units can shoot and/or leave cc and move over smaller units
+/- The USP of LI, its Hybrid phase/alternating activation system. Orders locked in start of turn forces you to think ahead but at the cost of reactivity during the turn. Subphases of taking turns activating vs true alternating activations. Means no possibility to move after everything has shot.
Also activations are not necessarily alternating, if player 1 has chosen fewer or no prders for a certain phase player 2 potentially gets to do lots in a row
+/- Legion Traits add flavour, but at the cost of balance as the power level is very unequal. Could have cost points per Formation to balance them?
-A bit slow. Very granular with (too) many special rules and traits for large games. CC with one vs one pairing also slows the game.
-No supression/pinning mechanic. Just focus fire to kill and hope to break as there is no pinning units you can't kill enough of to break. Morale plays little role over all as even broken formations' units can be ordered to Move & Shoot & charge
-No degradation of Multi wound units as they are damaged. Together with lack of supression this means everything is at full capacity until dead. Which will again reward larger/tougher units and make it sometimes pointless to shoot at things you can't finish. e.g. a Warlord Titan with 1W remaining is as dangerous to you as an undamaged one.
-Bad internal balance. A&B weapon choices for the same points where one is clearly statistically better. Also Titans in particular gain more in power level than points increase, bigger is stronger per point
-Everything gets to shoot at flyers

Here images from our last games for terrain density reference, if your group has come to other conclusions. We are working on more scatter, obstacles & obstruction area terrain.

The balance can be improved by Erratas & house Erratas.

Its also early days, incomplete game without assault/core transports & artillery.

I think your review is pretty spot on, I'd only take one exception and that's that the formations don't actually limit very much without limiting the total number of formations a player can take. This is because they're very loose, example, I could field a formation for solar aux that is all of 70pts, just to get an extra commander, conversely I could field a single detachment that is over 3000 points and its made up entirely of baneblades and leman russes. Some formations are broken in conception, the pioneer company just lets a whole swathe of solar aux infiltrate. You're absolutely correct that the legions traits aren't created remotely equal, well that formation basically make solar aux able to be raven guard. Limiting formations won't fix all the other issues, especially the a and b options stuff, which you are definitely correct is a glaringly obvious problem esp with contemptors and prtending kheres is anywhere near an accurate lascannon.

Thanks. Yes I agree with you, the Formations themselves are very loose and not limited in maximum number. I was more talking in principle. If they were to introduce Formations with fewer Option slot, or we as players limit which and how many Formations a player can take, we somewhat balance army building. Legion Demi-Company is a pretty balanced building block for example. Restricting Pioneer company if one wants can also be done, and probably will be done.

Since GW won't provide point costs for weapon options which means the balance can never be as good as we/I like, I am toying with a group/house Erratas that introduces point costs for A&B options where they are the most different. Kheres/LC, Vanquisher/BC, Titan weapons etc. But we are awaiting more games and with the more complete lists after the expansion drops before considering that.

Right now I just laugh at my silly 6 Kheres Contemptors accomplishing nothing in shooting, while my main gaming buddys 2x8 LC Contemptors spew out Accurate AT. We tried considering the one attack dice a typo and gave it 2 dice similar to the HB in our last games, it's still really weak but at least can take out a few models with weak saves then.

Re: Obstacles I am building the pipes from the Manufactorum set, and got some FW barrricades incoming. Waiting for the GW ruins to come in stock so we can build matching ruin areas and have some more patches of difficult terrain.

For the next board, I purchased Lazy Forgers awesome new modular industrial stl's and his research complex. Walls, gates, pipelines galore. Can almost make a Zone Mortalis with that. Might be a year off though given the painting backlog.

 westiebestie wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 westiebestie wrote:
@Mad doc: Both Breachers & Destroyers have models to print, and rules in EA30k. Breachers are easily identifiable on the board, Destroyers not so much.

I have some on my desk, awaiting LI rules. Might play them as tacticals/Ass Marines until then, just because they are cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:


and wondering what the "light armour" slot will end up with

Sabre light tanks. Small, cool af imo. Available to print already, probably coming in plastic later since they have that slot.

I think your review is pretty spot on, I'd only take one exception and that's that the formations don't actually limit very much without limiting the total number of formations a player can take. This is because they're very loose, example, I could field a formation for solar aux that is all of 70pts, just to get an extra commander, conversely I could field a single detachment that is over 3000 points and its made up entirely of baneblades and leman russes. Some formations are broken in conception, the pioneer company just lets a whole swathe of solar aux infiltrate. You're absolutely correct that the legions traits aren't created remotely equal, well that formation basically make solar aux able to be raven guard. Limiting formations won't fix all the other issues, especially the a and b options stuff, which you are definitely correct is a glaringly obvious problem esp with contemptors and prtending kheres is anywhere near an accurate lascannon.

Thanks. Yes I agree with you, the Formations themselves are very loose and not limited in maximum number. I was more talking in principle. If they were to introduce Formations with fewer Option slot, or we as players limit which and how many Formations a player can take, we somewhat balance army building. Legion Demi-Company is a pretty balanced building block for example. Restricting Pioneer company if one wants can also be done, and probably will be done.

Since GW won't provide point costs for weapon options which means the balance can never be as good as we/I like, I am toying with a group/house Erratas that introduces point costs for A&B options where they are the most different. Kheres/LC, Vanquisher/BC, Titan weapons etc. But we are awaiting more games and with the more complete lists after the expansion drops before considering that.

Right now I just laugh at my silly 6 Kheres Contemptors accomplishing nothing in shooting, while my main gaming buddys 2x8 LC Contemptors spew out Accurate AT. We tried considering the one attack dice a typo and gave it 2 dice similar to the HB in our last games, it's still really weak but at least can take out a few models with weak saves then.

Re: Obstacles I am building the pipes from the Manufactorum set, and got some FW barrricades incoming. Waiting for the GW ruins to come in stock so we can build matching ruin areas and have some more patches of difficult terrain.

For the next board, I purchased Lazy Forgers awesome new modular industrial stl's and his research complex. Walls, gates, pipelines galore. Can almost make a Zone Mortalis with that. Might be a year off though given the painting backlog.

Nice the complex is probably one of the best sets you can get for li. The walls if kept unbasted can be destructible to tanks ramming through them, but infantry could be allowed just to move over, so good for ambushes/lurking out los. I could also see the gate houses being a fun place to make some homebrew rules about who control which gate.

I'd also recommend the asian school buildings as they're quite big and branching without being needlessly tall and can fit 25mm's on top.

I think the critical thing is, infantry being only so tall, the design of terrain specifically for them is important because even 1 mm too tall and it can totally blocks los. This also ties into the criteria that units/bases must touch to gain the benefit, otherwise players would be constantly checking/arguing over cover saves. I feel this was a very deliberate decision on the designers part. Also I think why pre measuring for everything is allowed because distance and los are basically the only determinants of what models are in and out of a wound pool.

 Crablezworth wrote:

The real benefit of the 30k setting and limited factions with a lot of overlap is like with titanicus, the whole player base generally gets to benefit from a new book/release. A lot less jealousy because any new unit that performs well, isn't locked away from anyone, it's an allie chart away from being taken in their own army.

Absolutely. The Imperial aesthetic isn't for everyone but its awesome when the opposing player might say "well, I got a spare Reaver you can use for our game, being as you're some points short".

It also makes balance a lot better, as everyone has more or less the same army building options.

Sure, we’ll still get some duff match ups here and there, but that’s down to a specific list and not because, say, Pete Haines wrote your Codex

There's that as well.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there are a lot of Legions threads on the go. I still think a 30K section, with it's 4 games, is worth consideration.

another game, 2k+ warhound

enemy was marines, armour & demi, with a pair of thunderhawks eating a good few points

I have Auxilia, armour & pioneed, plus marine garrison

so yes..

- Thunderhawks can be annoying when you only have -1 AP firing at them, but not half as annoying as a pair of lightnings removing one in "intercept" mode with decent dice
- Vanquishers are broken, yes I had 16 of them out of 18 Leman Russ, one unit of six one shotted his warhound, another deleted most of a block of nine predators.
- having assault marines, on charge orders as a reserve in place is wonderful for dealing with enemy who think they have gotten a charge off against armour only to find friends drop by to say hello
- thudd guns are evil little sods

by turn four we called it, as by then while we were equal on points I had half my army to the marines having basically nothing so the 5th turn was mine, and I was on all three objectives. I also had my secondary and he didn't to add in

I think the big stuff is seriously over costed for its robustness

Looking at the Demi-Company.

We’re as yet without Vanguard and Light Armour things to choose. And the only Transport option are Rhino, which we also, more importantly, can have as Dedicated Transport freebies.

This needs to change. Pronto.

I’ve nearly maxed out my Infantry options. All I’m short of are two bases each Heavy, Plasma, Assault and Terminators, all of which are comfortably covered by Just One More Box.

Oh, and Bastion, we need Bastion. But the models for that are coming in the form of Deredeo and Tarantulas.

I would have had tarantula tonight, they are still sitting on my desk where I left them

*rage*

though as it turned out my opponent was quite glad I lacked four more skyfire units

certainly need more units, and different units able to do different things

marines need an assault transport, Auxilia need a decent transport, the various marine scouting units will make a different too I think, especially if stuff like land speeders are reasonable points with an anti tank option

Yeah. Until we’ve a wider suite of options, I think it’s safe to say we’re not seeing the game at its full potential


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For instance? Whilst they seem destined to be a Bloody Menace, I wonder how curtailed Vanquishers will be once Marines have Speeders, and Drop Pods. Something which lets them really move up the table rapidly.

Same with the Xiphons come to think of it, as they pack a decent AT punch. I think. Whilst none of the above are simply a Delete button, it’s all stuff things like Vanquishers won’t want to act incautiously around. Like Little, Smiling, Wrinkly Old Bald Man.

Which is of course Rule 1. Rule 19 being a to ask yourself “how come Rule 1 exists?”

totally, only have to look at the Heresy lists to see the scope of capabilities currently missing

Auxilia armour will be a lot less dangerous when marines have fast moving stuff that can flank it to get past the armour for one thing

can see a marine v Auxilia game coming down to marines hitting, and hitting hard for two turns with strike units, if the Auxilia survive they win, otherwise they will be broken, but only then will their own slower moving assault units come into play

should be an interesting dynamic

Tarantula and similar will make for good speed bumps, dangerous enough you have to kill them, but then that slows the advance down

Or allows the Marine to cede a flank for a turn or two by leaving some unpleasantness, reinforcing it as needs be with Drop Pods and/or Rhino mounted infantry.

I am hoping Land Raiders and Spartans fall under Transports. That’d be cool.

guessing if they do it right Land Raiders will fall under armour, with some formations able to take them as transports or some detachments as dedicated transports

Spartans the same, though maybe slightly more restricted

wondering on the stats, 2+ armour at a guess, and for the basic land raider a hull heavy bolter and a pair of "accurate" las-cannon sponsons, perhaps lacking the "Arc (Front)" rule

issue is the Spartan if they give it four "accurate" las cannon will either be too expensive or over powered in game, personally I'd give it three "accurate" dice

could go with a 1+ save on them as well, so a 2+ if you flank them, or a 2+ with a note they do not suffer the -1 from the rear


Automatically Appended Next Post:
thoughts on some of the tank weapons options, have a "base" tank and then "variants"

you have up to one in three in a "core" detachment as the variant or can take variant options as full platoons in non-core choices

so say a Solar Auxilia Armoured Company runs two detachments of Leman Russ, with no more than one in three as a Vanquisher, or they are full battle cannon units and the "optional" slots can be pure vanquishers

potentially with a note that an "option" slot cannot have more models than a "core" slot of the same type

so now 2x4 Leman Russ then 2x8 Vanquishers

basically put the "variant" tanks in as the minority

leopard wrote:


I think the big stuff is seriously over costed for its robustness

Well, yes and no, I think if people want to do close in skirmishers knights are a far better way to go, like one questoris with3 melta/ccw armigers is a way better way to go than a close range warhound. The builds I'm looking at for hound are all like maxing the 35 inch range so I an just huge the middle of the board and hopefully keep deep strikers and tanks way away from me or just out range them with movement.

The reality though is something like a reaver that can take 8 40 inch ranged very high ap shots when played similarly is very very very good, they have to commit a lot to kill it, vanquishers can certainly do it but its really just an activation game then because it can just as readily outrange and destroy them wholesale.

Bottom line though I feel like for cc it's more about questoris/laners/atrapos/styrix/magaera and especiall armigers and moirax. Armigers in particular are insanely good for the 60pts a piece you pay,

But ya, titans seem best when putting out silly amounts of dice hopefully at a decent range. It's nice to be able to damage structures and remove obstacles, but I feel like they're ideal to just max on long range and own whole section of the board. Skirmishing up close is how they get swamped, it really is a knights game for mid to close imo. When people play with a bit more natural impassable terrain like rocks/cliffs and really start having to deal with gap/breach fighting, they'll realize how strong something like the lancer is up close, reach can save a lot of time if you're only able to make contact with a few bases of infantry or tanks. Very very strong.

I’m hesitant to suggest restrictions until we’ve got more Toys to play with.

Vanquishers are of course nasty, and short of a FAQ/Errata will continue to be so.

But once Artillery and other stuff is in play rules wise, and for me commercially available, it just seem too early to call.

was thinking more how a Thunderhawk is a 2+ save with just two wounds in a world of "always hits a on a six AP-1 laser cannons"

also a warhound being turned into evaporated milk tins in a single volley

as for restrictions, I'm only really thinking of such for now, it needs to be re-evaluated with each new book released which provides more options

e.g. stuff that can get on the flank of 2+ armour makes pushing 2+ armour forwards more risky, in turn making it harder to score with them, changing their worth

the game tonight though I had three units of six Leman Russ @ 260 points each, as noted, one one shotted a warhound

I also had 100 points of baneblade that did practically nothing, and then died

the LR are 43 points per wound they have, the Baneblade 50, which is crazy when you consider the firepower

comes down to the usual with GW: the points system is screwed, I also suspect its not actually going to be changed due to the way they have arranged the books

I also had a warhound, it survived, because my opponent lacked 30"+ range weapons, but to be honest a 4th Vanquisher unit for less points would have been vastly more useful

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m hesitant to suggest restrictions until we’ve got more Toys to play with.

Vanquishers are of course nasty, and short of a FAQ/Errata will continue to be so.

But once Artillery and other stuff is in play rules wise, and for me commercially available, it just seem too early to call.

+

Well its not just vanquishers, its that they're on very good chasis with 2+ save and decent speed, add to that they can be taken in 10's, which to leopard's remark about a warhound being destroyed by I believe a detachment of just 6. So many detachments if maxed out have very large amount of firepower, like 6 baneblades/10 russes are just very strong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:
was thinking more how a Thunderhawk is a 2+ save with just two wounds in a world of "always hits a on a six AP-1 laser cannons"

also a warhound being turned into evaporated milk tins in a single volley

as for restrictions, I'm only really thinking of such for now, it needs to be re-evaluated with each new book released which provides more options

e.g. stuff that can get on the flank of 2+ armour makes pushing 2+ armour forwards more risky, in turn making it harder to score with them, changing their worth

the game tonight though I had three units of six Leman Russ @ 260 points each, as noted, one one shotted a warhound

I also had 100 points of baneblade that did practically nothing, and then died

the LR are 43 points per wound they have, the Baneblade 50, which is crazy when you consider the firepower

comes down to the usual with GW: the points system is screwed, I also suspect its not actually going to be changed due to the way they have arranged the books

I also had a warhound, it survived, because my opponent lacked 30"+ range weapons, but to be honest a 4th Vanquisher unit for less points would have been vastly more useful

I think for gamse where both sides are going pretty light on air power, either that fight ace idea i mentioned where both sides either get or can purchase the ability to take both armour and jink when possible.

Another idea I had was ditching, allowing plains to immediately go back into reserve if overwatched but they burn their whole turn. I also would much prefer if deep strike scatter had a simple mishap table, where instead of just auto dead there's a likelihood of being delayed or placed by opponents. Even with a shorter scatter and deep strike being so strong, it doesn't feel like the correct way to balance it, especially with the added control players have of when and where they come in unlike other games that usually had an element of rolling for reserve.

On the vanquisher stuff, its sorta nutty how many you can have in a single formation. 50 russes and 12 baneblades and its still under 3k by 35pts, break point of 31 too....

 westiebestie wrote:
@Mad doc: Both Breachers & Destroyers have models to print, and rules in EA30k. Breachers are easily identifiable on the board, Destroyers not so much.

I have some on my desk, awaiting LI rules. Might play them as tacticals/Ass Marines until then, just because they are cool.

I did some Destroyers, they are pretty easy to represent due to the colouring.


I always thought Destroyers were one of the biggest missed opportunities in AoD 30k. You have all of these amazing descriptions of nuke/chemical weapon-carrying marines and all of this other crazy stuff, and then the model came out and was armed with.. pistols.
So I went OTT with mine; have rules which are fairly short range but high AP/CAF and able to avoid cover and things like that. You could also add some fun stuff that there is a chance the unit detonates when destroyed and takes out nearby units.

We played one scenario once where the Destroyers have to escort a nuclear-bomb vehicle to a point in the board. The rest of the World Eaters force had to withdraw, the Destroyers were expected to remain with the bomb and not return.

one other I was thinking of was to allow aircraft with "Interceptor" to be taken as part of a unit of aircraft without it, and gain the "Escort" special rule

this requires them to remain within 4" of the aircraft they are escorting, prevents them from attacking non-flier targets, but allows them to use their "Interceptor" to get the jump on anything trying that against the escorted craft.

as in your move your escorted flight and escorts, I bring in an interceptor flight to attack it, but the escorts will get to fire first

also allows hits scored on the group to be assigned to the escorts, rolling against their saves etc first.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
also while Six Vanquishers did drop a warhound, they had some lucky rolls to do it and the warhound fluffed its saves

leopard wrote:

also while Six Vanquishers did drop a warhound, they had some lucky rolls to do it and the warhound fluffed its saves

Well that's given Average is 3 lascannon hit and 3 vanguisher.

That leaves 1 vanguisher to be saved(obviously warhound will tank the vanguisher cannon to void shields) for 75% chance and 3 lascannon so 1.75 wounds in average out of 4.

That's assuming warhound isn't hugging terrain for -1/-2 to hit by hiding part of the titan out of sight. Which scout titans with their manouverability generally should aim to do. They are also small enough that the -2 to hit isn't even super hard to get.