Price of Hunters |
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Price of Hunters  Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 10:08 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
There is also the fact that, since the Hunter is the longest-ranged unit in the formation if a target is beyond the shorter-ranged units the Hunter is the first to be suppressed, effectively limiting its range to that of the units around it and eliminating the range advantage as soon as the formation as 2 BMs.
Like I said, I think nearly everyone agrees that SM AA ability needs a bump.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Bombot
|
Post subject: Price of Hunters Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 12:17 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 1:06 pm
Posts: 348
Location: Reading, UK
|
|
I don?t know, I think dodgy flak cover is supposed to e part of the Space Marines?, err, charm. That?s the impression I get from the Hunter?s background fluff.
It?s if they?re not performing to their strengths that there?s a problem.
_________________
"The Hoff isn't just a person - he's a state of mind, a kind of higher power"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
J0k3r
|
Post subject: Price of Hunters Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 12:34 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 876
Location: Edinburgh, UK
|
|
Something else to consider is that the Hydra also has quite good AP abilities. Perhaps addition of AP to the hunter missile might help make it more versatile and better reflect the points expenditure.
Lord Inq- i cant decide about the hunter AA formation. Ive seen how effective massed Hunters can be ( at the expense of a Thawk loaded with assault troops, GRRR); however removing 1-2 whirlwinds would make whirlwinds pretty ineffectual in barrages, so the obvious choice is to have a 4 hunter formation. While they will give you an impenetrable AA envelope they can only cover a limited frontage (athough at 135cm still sizeable!) and would present a really juicy target to fast assault infantry and bikes given their non existent AP and poor cc/ff. For the points id rather have 4 hunters spread across other formations- less eggs in one basket and, if advancing in close support, almost as effective.
IMO the best thing would be to allow them to be added to LR and predator formations, which would make them more flexible and less obvious AT targets.
_________________
"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth; it is wise and terrible."
-Spider Jerusalem
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Ilushia
|
Post subject: Price of Hunters Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 2:39 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
|
|
I'd like to see them move to AT 3+/AA 3+ and being able to be taken by Land Raider, Predator and Vindicator formations (Not that anyone actually FIELDS Vindicator formations that I've ever seen, but that's besid the point).
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lord Inquisitor
|
Post subject: Price of Hunters Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 5:55 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Norfolk VA USA
|
|
I think I'd agree. While normally I would advocate changing the points/army structure of the codex list in preference to changing datafaxes, the points value is ultimately right (the marines seem to keep things in multiples of 25, landspeeders excepted) unless we want to drop them to 50 points each (which seems a tad cheap). Making them a superior AA and AT unit is good, and adding them to armour formations seems obvious.
Lord =I=
|
|
| Top |
|
|
