Yes. There are the same aircraft expect that the Thunderhawk Transporter doesn't has the Battle Cannon and a different transport ability.
Else they are identical.
Edit: I would like to see DC3 with 4+ or 5+RA for both Thunderhawks too
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Re-done Black Templars http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=12015 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Pulsar [ Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re-done Black Templars |
when i first looked at the current Black Templar list there were a few things about it i didn't like, so for myself i started thinking of a list that i would like to play. after talking to a few friends who play space marines, reading the Templar 40k Codex and playing the current list a few times i put this together:- Black Templar army list please have a look and tell me what you think, p.s. plaese ignore the points cost on the list they are mostly taken straight out of the printed rule book and i'm not sure about the current costs and how there going to change. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re-done Black Templars |
Could you summarise the main changes to the Vault version of the list that you've made? |
|
| Author: | Pulsar [ Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re-done Black Templars |
ok main changes are: 1. making you have to take the Emperor's Champion in one formation 2. removing the Thunderhawk Annihilatior and replacing with Turbolaser Upgrade 3. new unit type for Sword Breathen as well as terminators 4. put Thunderhawk Transporter in to the list 5. removed the fact that they couldn't take Navy and Titan Legions at all and made it so you to take them but only 1/4 of your points 6. add a Transport upgrade to the non-terminator Sword Breathen so they can use rhinos or drop pods for 50 points thats all i can think of apart for some things in the Upgrades, like being able to add more land raiders to a land raider formation and the same with Vindicators. note: i've just seen that i forgot to add the land speeder upgrade, i'll do it the next time i change the list |
|
| Author: | Soren [ Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re-done Black Templars |
Why do Brethren pay 50! pts for free Rhinos or Drop pods? |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re-done Black Templars |
1. The Thunderhawk Transporters stats are way too good for the cost. I would like that you'd take the stats from Scions list and cost it 150 Your stats make it a different DC and different armour value to the Thunderhawk Gunship. It's supposed to have an identical armour profile and damage capacity as a Thunderhawk Gunship ; Your Scions stats for it are wrong. 2. The idea as I understood on BT list was a crusader list. So I would really not add the Navy or Titans as it blands the list. Better to try to make it work without them. I would suggest that use the CAS and SB T'hawks in 1/3 section of the list instea I agree with Neal's comments from the other thread... a Thunderhawk with 'speed: Fighter-Bomber' is a poor idea. I have no personal opinion as to whether they should get Titan / Aircraft support or not. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re-done Black Templars |
This is only your opinion Hena, and I'm sorry but on this I think you're wrong. |
|
| Author: | Soren [ Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re-done Black Templars |
@hena: I agree to you with weapon stats (your turret defence mounts on THT are a good example for this) but not on the armor value. They should really be unisono for the same chassis type. It?s like giving the LR Conqueror variant another armor value than a standard pattern LR. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re-done Black Templars |
@Soren: As far as I know, this would be the only occasion in all of Epic where a single vehicle (The Gunship and the Transporter are built on the same basic hull, and in 40k have an identical armour profile) would have two completely different DC/Armour profiles for it. As you say, it's like having a Leman Russ, and a Leman Russ Demolisher, yet saying one is a DC2 war engine with RA5+. Many stats are changed to represent the unit better... I actually agree that DC3, RA5+ is a good stat for Thunderhawks... but since it's unlikely that can be changed for the Gunship, and for the sake of being sensible, both vehicles MUST have the same armour profile. |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re-done Black Templars |
Yes. There are the same aircraft expect that the Thunderhawk Transporter doesn't has the Battle Cannon and a different transport ability. Else they are identical. Edit: I would like to see DC3 with 4+ or 5+RA for both Thunderhawks too |
|
| Author: | Steve54 [ Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re-done Black Templars |
I didn't think there was much wrong with the old list - it did exactly what a variant marine list should. It had minimal new units but still provided a different flavour as you gained the TH Annihilator and larger unit sizes but lost titans and aircraft. All it needed was discussion/testing over the role/stats of the annihilator |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re-done Black Templars |
Oh and to provide something on-topic  The original BT list seems very fine and appropiate. The Thunderhawk Annihilator might be a problem but it could be easily swapped for a Thunderhawk equipped with Turbo-laser Destructor, Bombs and Hellstrike Missiles (with speed: Bomber NOT Fighter-bomber). |
|
| Author: | Pulsar [ Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re-done Black Templars |
firstly i'd like to thank Hena for giving me the chance to make this list work, BT are one of my favourite 40k armys and it's a good reason for me to start painting space marines!!! the main reason i would like to change the list is because one of the best things about the 40k list is it plays a bit differently than the normal marines and with the epic list the list that i would use for BT is appart from having to take a 1/3 of my list as normal templars and no titans it plays the same as a normal space marine list so why should you play BT when normal marine play the same and you can put titans on the table. on the Thunderhawk transporter i think it should have the same stats as the normal thunderhawk but what those should be i don't know. on the titans and navy i'll take them out of the list for now and see if it works when i play it some more. and thanks for your other changes i'll put them in and see how the list shapes up. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re-done Black Templars |
First and most important, where are you going with the list? What's the intended style? That will tell you why someone would take BT instead of Codex. Up to now, the concept for the BT in epic has been the SM version of a horde. I would like to see that followed if it can work. In other words, fewer, larger formations with slightly lower quality troops (Neophytes) added in. Assuming you stick with that, it seems to me the BT should actually run a lot like a Black Legion army list, but with different specialty toys. Because of that, I liked the Neophyte Bikes in earlier versions of the list. They provided a way to boost the size of formations aside from the basic Tac detachment. But if 40K has abandoned that idea, I don't suppose there's a lot we can do. I've never paid attention to the 40K BT rules. Are there other ways to use Neophytes? Could they be worked into the list in other places? === Champion: I definitely would not make this mandatory. Thawk Transporter: Is it needed for the style of list you intend? I think a "horde" army could easily get by without it and just use the Landing Craft. Use the Scions stats. There are obviously some controversies involved, but they were good enough to win the army list contest. Thawk Variants: I'd use the Scions stats for them, too. Neophytes: Right now I don't see much point in taking them. Even at 25 points, they don't seem worth it. I can only think of 1 definite use - extra slots for Razorbacks. I wouldn't even use them to fill out a Tactical formation for a cheap air assault because I'd rather have a Dreadnought than 2 Neophytes. For other potential uses, I might use them to bulk up a formation for a Supreme Commander/BTS combo, i.e. as meat shields. I might also try a big formation of them for an assault, but the problem with that is they have to stay mounted to have a decent assault radius - with Neophytes as meat shields out front, it might not be completely suicidal to stay in the Rhinos but it still seems dicey to me. Fast Attack: If you want to stick with the "larger formation" concept, several of the variant SM lists have made use of a "Fast Attack" upgrade which allows them to bulk up formations with Assault Marines or Bikes. This could fill a slot that Neophyte Bikes did in earlier versions. Allies: I would cut the titans and air and see if the list can work without it. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|