Dobbsy wrote:
The issue I see is the capture of your objectives on the other side of the board. How do Baran's manage it?
they can afford 15-16 activations, so keep a good few quick units to nip out and grab objectives, also they would probably place their own objectives very close to the centre line, then have bunkers within 15cm to contest them with infantry if possible
Dobbsy wrote:
Can you say why exactly?
Steve already covered it, but they provide a very minimal benefit to the majority of units in the list
Dobbsy wrote:
GLad you liked the idea. Figured it was a nice simple slot in to a defensive list.
yeah it makes sense really
Dobbsy wrote:
I would have thought the list should be able to defend against all comers.
maybe but some lists are better at attacking than others, also if you come up against another siege list, you need to be able to mount an effective attack of your own
Dobbsy wrote:
kyussinchains wrote:
Adding a techmarine character, 25 pt upgrade to thunderfires or bastion, standard marine character loadout but no other ability, leader represents field repairs
Hmm I like the idea of Techmarines just not sure how others will see it. People seemd to dislike their inclusion previously for other lists. We'll see.
other than Glyn's point about thunderfires being crewed by techmarines (which is a stupid 40k holdover as I would expect the rules are written with the assumption that you don't usually have batteries of them) I quite like the idea.... we shall see
Dobbsy wrote:
Personally given the list would be completely different to most others I think it might be beneficial to over power the list first and work out what stinks rather than start weakly and hate testing it. It's not like you'll be playing it in a tourney any time soon.
I'm happy fiddling like it is really, just siege-wise it's very tough to balance, against most canny opponents you're going to be outnumbered, possibly doubly-so due to giving up vehicles to garrison, and you're probably going to have a blast marker or two, so you're starting anywhere from -2 to -4 down in an engagement, siegers have high numbers and probably a commissar which goes a long way to mitigating this, they also derive a huge proportional benefit from the 3+ bunker save, plus they're cheap so can often have several mutually supporting formations covering each other. They also have access to cheapish long ranged artillery which is an incentive for the opponent to move forwards, and with all the extra activations they are good at breaking stuff through blast markers alone
Dobbsy wrote:
I guess in theory, IF fortifications could all become the stationery similarity/equivalent of any Marine transport type available including possible weaponry e.g a bunker could be a stationery Land Raider with 4+RA and 2 Lascannons and a Twin Heavy bolter 4+ FF etc. Trenches become Rhinos with a 6+ FF etc. You could cost them similarly too.
that's a possibility I guess.....
Dobbsy wrote:
Alternatively a special rule? All IF infantry units in trenches on Overwatch gain a further -1 to be hit by enemy shooting???
not a bad idea but I really don't want to add special rules if possible... plus this wasn't a huge issue last night, it was the vulnerability to engagements that cost me dearly
Dobbsy wrote:
In effect you get a marine army that just sits on the objectives etc. Played/set up well, a defensive position should be a very nard nut to crack but can be done fairly.
having to spread yourself over three objectives is quite difficult I think as you don't have the numbers to defend them all particularly well, I think the new style Bastion will help a great deal there, as will freeing up points by swapping fortifications for transports
Dobbsy wrote:
Brainstorm:
Instead of having to go out to capture objective markers on the enemy side of the board, could the IF win their victory conditions differently with perhaps a defensive slant?
well if you can hang on to your objectives
and keep your opponent out of your half, you're almost there
Jaggedtoothgrin wrote:
In 40k, Tech marines have the ability to Bolster Defences (basically, improve the cover save of a piece of cover) and this list with all its thunderfires and whatnot clearly has a lot of use of Tech marines.
Perhaps if the IF trenches provide a 3+ cover safe, they'd be quite valuable (but super important to protect, cause losing them to an assaulting IG force would make them very hard to retake)
Food for thought certainly, in our game last night I managed to break a formation of chaos terminators in an engagement and they made a beeline for my empty bunkers!
I think the bunkers + minefields combo is pretty adequate, fortification-wise, just paying for them is a real drag when you could buy yourself more formations, or extra hunters....
jimmyzimms wrote:
Just thinking out loud but in the way back machine of 2nd edition trenches could allow a hidden deployment of a unit. It couldn't fire or move and location was recorded on paper. Maybe some thing similar could work here? Somewhat like the Raptors ambush squad hidden locations but much more focused. You know they're out there past no mans land in those trenches but exactly where isn't known. You have to go out there and find them.
some limit to this needs to be made so everyone isn't hidden and also allow some form of barrage probing. Lets target that location and see if we kill anyone.
it's a possibility.... but I'd rather try a few other things first
