Quote: (vytzka @ Jan. 26 2010, 09:44 )
done the math and found them better point for point for that than terminators
Terminators should cost more. They can teleport.
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Suggested Codex Marines detachment addition http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=17767 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | GR00V3R [ Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Suggested Codex Marines detachment addition |
I'm not sure where I was reading it the other day...I think one of the ImpArmour Apocalypse books...but there was a detachment available in it that I thought would be a great addition to E:A. Dreadnought Drop Pod Detachment (200pts) 4 Dreadnoughts (either config) with Planetfall (drop pods) Upgrades: Venerable Dreadnought (Inspiring, Leader) for 50pts Thoughts? |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Suggested Codex Marines detachment addition |
Detachments of 4 Dreadnoughts (2 CC, 2 Fire Support) have been tested at 200pts and found to be fine, IIRC. No need for a special "Venerable" upgrade, you could simply give them access to the standard Character upgrade. I believe that the formation would be best in a "tech marines" list like the Iron Hands, rather than the standard Codex list. |
|
| Author: | GR00V3R [ Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Suggested Codex Marines detachment addition |
RE: Venerable Yeah, that was just for "fluff factor" |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Suggested Codex Marines detachment addition |
Quote: I'll have to check out the Iron Hands list. Is that a drop-oriented list or something? It doesn't exist at all yet, but I've always seen it as a nice place to put loads of variant Dreadnoughts like the Ironclad and the Siege too. |
|
| Author: | vytzka [ Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Suggested Codex Marines detachment addition |
Weren't 4 PF/AC dreadnoughts found to be a bit much in a thunderhawk assault? This has definitely been discussed in the past. IIRC yours truly has done the math and found them better point for point for that than terminators, for what it's worth. Admittedly that's theory... we need a cool name for that, like with Theoryhammer and Theorymachine. Theorymageddon sounds good! Also no need for ven dreadnoughts when you can have chaplain in a dread. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Suggested Codex Marines detachment addition |
Quote: (vytzka @ Jan. 26 2010, 09:44 ) Weren't 4 PF/AC dreadnoughts found to be a bit much in a thunderhawk assault? This has definitely been discussed in the past. That's why the formation should be 2 of each type, rather than 4 power fist Dreadnoughts. |
|
| Author: | vytzka [ Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Suggested Codex Marines detachment addition |
Quote: (Evil and Chaos @ Jan. 26 2010, 11:48 ) Quote: (vytzka @ Jan. 26 2010, 09:44 ) Weren't 4 PF/AC dreadnoughts found to be a bit much in a thunderhawk assault? This has definitely been discussed in the past. That's why the formation should be 2 of each type, rather than 4 power fist Dreadnoughts. Oh right. Then it's probably fine. |
|
| Author: | GR00V3R [ Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Suggested Codex Marines detachment addition |
Quote: (vytzka @ Jan. 26 2010, 09:44 ) done the math and found them better point for point for that than terminators Terminators should cost more. They can teleport.
|
|
| Author: | vytzka [ Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Suggested Codex Marines detachment addition |
Quote: (GR00V3R @ Jan. 26 2010, 13:54 ) Quote: (vytzka @ Jan. 26 2010, 09:44 ) done the math and found them better point for point for that than terminators Terminators should cost more. They can teleport.  True. But people do use terminators for air assaults. And they kick butt for that. It's not necessarily BAWW UNFAIR TO TERMINATORS but it's definitely grounds to do actual playtesting before plugging it into a list. However it's a moot point as it's not what is being discussed 
|
|
| Author: | Fortis [ Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Suggested Codex Marines detachment addition |
If it is more efficient point for point on air assault then all the other choices in the standard marine list it's probably worth pausing for thought. Either way, the 2 and 2 formation sounds like a good plan. Although really I don't feel it reflects the way dreadnoughts are deployed in the fluff very well. |
|
| Author: | Steve54 [ Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Suggested Codex Marines detachment addition |
From the previous occasions when the dread formation has come up its proved ok in testing (even with 4 power fists) but the main issue has been whether it is fluffy to have a formation of dreadnoughts. |
|
| Author: | Dobbsy [ Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Suggested Codex Marines detachment addition |
Steve54 wrote: but the main issue has been whether it is fluffy to have a formation of dreadnoughts. I think it all depends on how you view/think Epic "combines" units. Personally, I feel 4 dreads just means independent dreads working closer across the battlefield, not having a specific grouping as some folks seem to approach this debate from. Look at upgrades for example. You don't normally have vindicators as part of a Tactical squad right? But you can have them working together with tactical formations in Epic.... Marines, especially, are masters of ad hoc. I'm sure 4 dreads could be mustered if the need arose.... |
|
| Author: | Mephiston [ Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Suggested Codex Marines detachment addition |
Discussed about once a year and mostly the "It's not fluffy" argument wins out. |
|
| Author: | Dobbsy [ Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Suggested Codex Marines detachment addition |
and half the reason the marines are not what they should be |
|
| Author: | GR00V3R [ Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Suggested Codex Marines detachment addition |
The first Forgeworld Apocalypse book allowed for a "legendary" formation of dreads in drop pods. Ipso facto (and someone would need to confirm my memory—I can't find the book), dread formations must be "fluffy", yes? 
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|