GlynG wrote:
What were your impressions of Salamanders drop lists though? Aren't they essentially just a more effective drop list than normal? (and with no cost increase for the spaceship or anything to compensate).
I can't remmebr if I ever tried one! Wouldn't have mattered though, I am awful at drop lists, losing a majority of games, even in the suicide scout bombardment days
ortron wrote:
So what would take you take that would make this list (25%?) better at air assault over standard marine options? What do salamanders tacticals/devs etc do that makes aerial delivery much better?
Points efficient FF formations. For 350 points you get a formation of 8 tacticals with FF MW. Not as good as a terminator close assault formation, but pretty much the best FF formation you can field I beleive, espcially if you do a 1-2 with another loaded hawk. And the formation will probably survive with enough member to be efective, unlike say assault marines. Similar with Devs.
Was also why the idea of a MM formation was dropped, as you would have to fly it in to be of any use.
It really comes in though with the landing craft where you can deliver short range shooting/FF units into point blank range. Prep the AA with warhound, fly in the landers...
Quote:
To me the salamanders should be strong at air assault inf formations and close range mech combat but limited by access to fast attack/numbers of activations. I think the low activation count, limited numbers should be the weakness and somewhat is already due to list design and upgrades. How about limiting scouts as well? -Salamander fluff suggests a slow recruitment process and an under strength scout company?
I beleive Scouts are part of the restricted formations already?
You can change to being a tech mech and air asault specialist, but what then are we gaining over the core marine list?
Focus for testing? Well I have to finish mentally wrestling with the predator. Giving it a super melta gun (15cm MW 4+?) means it would remain a support option and not a formation - that would just get airlifted and if it wasn't, lucky you. It seems best to stick with flamers, though I can understand giving it heavy bolters to give it a bit of range back. Annoying there isn't a model, while with the current one it is at least possible to buy it on ebay. Would that option also not simply replace the vindicator? Faster, more guns, though not as long ranged. Also trying to see where it would go - as an addition to a assault marine formation, not as good as the previous option, as an addition to a tac or dev formation? They are better off with a hunter and land raider.
On Hunters should they be split out and allow o-1 as a seperate upgrade? Currently you can do fun things with them like have a 2 hunter whirlwind formation, but you still really want hunters with you mech formations and that stops them getting tough and having a lot of redundant transport slots which was one of the ideas behind the list.
On helios - they were put in as a tech land raider option in the days they were rather rare. Now a few lists have them, do they add anything here?
Would hope to have the small number of changes written into the word file and pdf'd by the weekend. I thik it would look to simplify things and options.
I suppose a core question is, is it ok to have a list which gives you two options - sub-par list you can build anyway with the current marine list, or the optimal mech list. This has been a bone of contention with some, beleiving you shouldn't be able to make a normal marine list out of them (I am not fussed as they are slightly worse and plenty of lists let you do that).
Or do we go more radical, drop the landing craft, make the upgrade 0-2 redeemer, promethius, predator for 50 points each, hunter for 75 points each (dropping normal raiders), make the heavy transport upgrade 4 redeemers for 300 points, drop the helios? So make the upgrades more short ranged, drop their cost to compensate, and see where that goes?
