FW v SG SHT's |
|
Tas
|
Post subject: FW v SG SHT's  Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 12:37 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:01 am
Posts: 7823
Location: Sydney, NSW
|
| Quote (netepic @ 20 2004 Jan.,18:54) | To be honest - I don't have time for two forums, so I will be just hanging around here.
If people could keep us all informed tho, that would be groovy  . |
Me too- neither time nor inclination.
The occaisional drop by, but not the frequent visitiation I used to give it. Maybe that will increase when I eventually get some EA material in my hand Down here...
Good on you for taking the moderator job CrimsonFury 
_________________
Tas
My General blog: http://tasmancave.blogspot.com/
My VSF Blog: http://pauljamesog.blogspot.com/
My ECW Blog: http://declaresir.blogspot.com/
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: FW v SG SHT's Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 8:01 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
>> What sort of seperation did you mean?
The playtest forum was originally for just playtest issues - the core rules and army lists. The only alternate rules and lists that appeared were people's sugestions for fixing things in the core rules or the army lists.
I realize there are still specific sections for that, but the amount of other stuff is maddening when it duplicates so many other things. And by duplicate, I mean both internal (near-identical thread topics coming up just days apart), and external (steadily expanding painting and converting threads that appear in various forms on here, for instance).
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
primarch
|
Post subject: FW v SG SHT's Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:04 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27069
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
|
|
Hi!
Nice to know the moderation has changed and the tone is improving.
Primarch
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
mr_mich
|
Post subject: FW v SG SHT's Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2004 12:38 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:10 am
Posts: 115
|
|
Ok, I'm kind of new to epic and after reading the rulebook and playing a few exercises, my friend and I are going to start armies. I plan on doing IG, and he'll be doing SM. We both play 40k so we're not new to tabletop gaming.
SM 3000:
Ground: 2350 points
-Tactical Detachment (2 Rhinos, 2 Lascannon Razorbacks) - 350 points
-Devastator Detachment (Librarian) - 300 points
-Assault Detachment (Chaplain) - 225 points
-Terminator Detachment (Chaplain) - 375 points
-Devastator Detachment (Rhinos) - 250 points
-Predator Annihilator Detachment - 300 points
-Whirlwind Detachment - 300 points
-Warhound Titan - 250 points
Air: 650 points
-Marauder Bomber formation - 300 points
-Thunderbolt FB Formation - 150 points
-Thunderhawk Gunship - 200 points
I guess the basic strategy will be to teleport in the termies on a squad that will create problems, and I will keep the Librarian Devs and the Assault Marines on the T-hawk. This way, they can drop in and the Devs will support the assault marines while they attack. I guess I could also concentrate all 3 of those formations on one target if need be. Meanwhile, I'll have Thunderbolts/Marauders doing any air/ground patrol, Whirlies being a nuisance, a tac/dev team in rhinos for flexibility, a squad of preds, and of course the Warhound to hop around all he wants.
IG 3000 (no aircraft!):
Mobile part: 2100 points
-Regimental HQ (Hydra) - 550 points
-Mechanized Company (Hydra, Hellhounds) - 600 points
-Tank Company (Hydra) - 700 points
-Warhound Titan - 250 points
Shooty part: 900 points
-Infantry Company (Hydra) - 300 points
-Rough Riders - 150 points
-Deathstrikes - 200 points
-Artillery battery (Manticores) - 250 points
I think I have too much protection for the artillery, I'm not sure that the infantry screen AND rough riders are really necessary for that.
Any suggestions for either of these lists?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: FW v SG SHT's Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:06 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
I think the SM list needs more tacs, but other than that, they both look fine to me.
Tacs are the largest formation SMs can have, and that makes them the most durable. They are also just all-around good troops. Personally, I would drop the Marauders and take more tacs.
That said, the list is certainly playable as-is.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Legion 4
|
Post subject: FW v SG SHT's Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:55 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36989
Location: Ohio - USA
|
Neal is correct ... more infantry would be good. But as he said, your list is playable as is. I don't know what Gandalf is talking about ?!  
_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Gandalf the Grey
|
Post subject: FW v SG SHT's Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2004 5:00 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 4:23 pm
Posts: 789
Location: Tampa, Florida
|
|
Crack cocaine isn't good for you and it messes up your judgement.
Hey! I have 205 posts! That only puts me 2500 behind Legion!
_________________ Please check out my website: http://www.system17.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
primarch
|
Post subject: FW v SG SHT's Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2004 10:42 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27069
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
|
|
Hi!
Welcome to the boards mr_mich!
Primarch
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Serps
|
Post subject: FW v SG SHT's Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 2:07 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 2:47 am
Posts: 388
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
|
I'd put the Librarian on the land speeders rather than the Devastators. You probably don't need the Marauders if you have Whirlwinds, but I'd definitely be putting a Hunter somewhere in your force. Just having one will put a crimp on any enemy aircraft.
I'd keep the inf coy and the rough riders with the artillery, at least until you can fire both deathstrikes. Then maybe move the riders away to take an objective.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
mr_mich
|
Post subject: FW v SG SHT's Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 4:17 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:10 am
Posts: 115
|
Thanks for the help/welcome so far everyone.
For the space marine list, I hadn't realized I had no hunters! I'll see how I can drop 100 points to get a couple hunters. The reason I have the librarian with the devastators so that when the thunderhawk drops them and the assault squad, the assault and dev-firefight combo will be even deadlier. I like the idea of the marauders, I'll see how the whirlies work, and if I'm not satisfied, I'll drop them and probably get some more tacs/hunters.
For the IG list, I guess we'll see how that goes.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Legion 4
|
Post subject: FW v SG SHT's Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 6:24 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36989
Location: Ohio - USA
|
Both lists should work, if played well ... 
_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: FW v SG SHT's Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 5:45 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
I noticed Gandalf's first post is gone.
I don't know if it was a moderator deal or what, but for the record it didn't bother me, so no hard feelings.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Justiniel
|
Post subject: FW v SG SHT's Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:49 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 3280
Location: Holywood, Northern Ireland
|
|
Just ordered some SHT's from Forgeworld, would anyone have size comparison pics with those of SG?
I have a couple (SG) already and was wondering if they would fit together.
(if not there could be a couple on offer in the near future)
_________________ I'm involved in Nunnery Practice  My latest Blog http://www.players.tacticalwargames.net ... p?blogId=8
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Warmaster Nice
|
Post subject: FW v SG SHT's Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 2:20 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 9:15 pm
Posts: 7948
Location: Denmark
|
The FW models are somewhat larger than the SG ones. I tend to use them in seperate IG armies (Metal ones in my Desert IG and FW for my Cadians)
Uhm.. haven't got a proper comparison pic but I do have a recent overall shot of my Imperial army. There's some FW SHTs in the upper left corner. Pretty dark in the pic but I hope it gives at least some impression of the size difference.
http://uk.f1.pg.briefcase.yahoo.com/bc.....view=l
Cheers!
_________________
Sofa General
Nobody expects the Inquisition!!!
http://theepiclounge.wordpress.com/
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Legion 4
|
Post subject: FW v SG SHT's Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 2:50 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36989
Location: Ohio - USA
|
Yup, I have them all, the F/W S/Heavies are bigger than G/W's and G/W's L/Russes are bigger than F/W's ... But in my opinion, it is not a problem. If you look at AFVs in the France '40 campaign, the German (and Czech 35t and 38t), French and U.K. tanks varied in sizes greatly. So if you need a real world precedent there it is. Otherwise, it is typical of G/W-S/G and F/W coordination, there is very little ! The F/W Valkyries vs S/G's ... we really don't need both ! But that has been the norm forever ! 
_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
