| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Siege Assault Vanguard http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=20184 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:17 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Siege Assault Vanguard | ||
Based on Forgeworld's Space Marine Siege Assault Vanguard Army in Imperial Armour 10 i came up with the following army list for Epic. Note that this is a Siege Space Marine army on the attack as opposed to the Imperial Fists army list which is based on a Siege Space Marine army on the defence. Edit: V0.3 now available.
|
|||
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Wed Feb 09, 2011 4:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Siege Assault Vanguard |
Oops. Forgot to adjust the points cost for the bigger vehicle formations. Correct version now in the first posting. |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Siege Assault Vanguard |
Ok 9 downloads and no comments? |
|
| Author: | Apocolocyntosis [ Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Siege Assault Vanguard |
Quote: Ok 9 downloads and no comments? Looks fun, sort of list i could see myself using as the defensive IF list does not interest me so much. Comments on marine lists always seem to get very involved, so i was just going to passby in silence …  Having a lone caestus as formation and letting it carry tacticals seems a bit odd given that it can carry 4 and the formation is 6? NetEA seems to have experimental caestus at transport 2. |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Siege Assault Vanguard |
Yes. Ideally the Caestus would be an Armoured Venicle and/or Aircraft which could transport units not from it's own formation. But as everyone seems to believe that independent transport vehicles are to complicated i put two Ceasti on the same base and call it a War Engine Aircraft with DC2. I choosed 2 because 3 seemed even more far fetched. This restricts the transportable formations in this list to the (standard) Assault Detachment and the Siege Terminator Detachment. This makes the Caestus a weaker Thunderhawk. |
|
| Author: | Apocolocyntosis [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Siege Assault Vanguard |
List has an upgrade 'Heavy Support' but no formation has this as an allowed upgrade. |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Siege Assault Vanguard |
Ah good catch! Tacticals, Devastators, Siege Assaults and Terminators should get it. Also tacticals should loose their Rhinos if they take Siege Mantlets as these are to bulky (doesn't prevent them to be transported by Land Raiders and Caesti). Edit: V0.2 with these corrections included now available. I'm tempted to allow it also for Predator, Vindicator and Whirlwind Detachments. A point of note: IA10 mentiones the Sons of Medusa (Iron Hands Successor Chapter) by name as a fitting Chapter to use this list (and it also mentiones the Minotaurs but i find the Sons of Medusa more fitting see below). Also GW mintioned that the Sons o Medusa like to use lots of tanks. IA 10 lists the Chapter as consisting of 3 War Clans. Each War Clans consists of 3 Companies. 1 Battle Company, 1 Tactical Company and 1 Support Company (the former two conforming roughly to their Codex equivalents, while the Support Company comprises a mixture of Devastator, Assault and Veteran Squads). Additionally rather than a dedicated Scout Company, each War Clan maintains abody of recruits andinitiates whichit considers to be an auxiliary force. |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Siege Assault Vanguard |
Missed points cost for the Siege Dreadnought Talon. Correct V0.2.1 now downladable. |
|
| Author: | Nat [ Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Siege Assault Vanguard |
A nice start, I like the variation/difference from codex, and siege is a good way to focus on underused models like dreadnaughts etc. One problem I see is the caestus has planetfall, but there is no spaceship available in the list. |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Siege Assault Vanguard |
Well i guess if an orbital operation isn't working and the Space Marines are actually commencing a siege then Spacecrafts have already been proven to be useless. The Caestus is by definition a space capable vessel so it has Planetfall evenif it can't use it in this list. I wouldl ike to test this list against Imperial Fists, Baran or Mossinians as the Siege Assault Vanguard would be the direct antithesis of these
|
|
| Author: | Dobbsy [ Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Siege Assault Vanguard |
BL, as per Dave's view here: http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=21921 If you're ok with it, I'll slot the Caestus into the upgrades section of the Vanguard list and adjust for the formations that can use it. Maybe discuss this with Dave if you have any issues with the change? Cheers |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Siege Assault Vanguard |
Is this list actually needed anymore? It seems to be duplicating the Imperial Fists list fairly closely? |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Siege Assault Vanguard |
The Imperial Fists list would be a "Siege Defence Sternguard" kind of thing. While the Imperial Fists are more Baran Siegemaster like the Assault Siege Vanguard is more Deathkorps like. @Caestus: I laid down my reasonings in the linked thread. And my post above Quote: Yes. Ideally the Caestus would be an Armoured Venicle and/or Aircraft which could transport units not from it's own formation.
But as everyone seems to believe that independent transport vehicles are to complicated i put two Ceasti on the same base and call it a War Engine Aircraft with DC2. I choosed 2 because 3 seemed even more far fetched. This restricts the transportable formations in this list to the (standard) Assault Detachment and the Siege Terminator Detachment. This makes the Caestus a weaker Thunderhawk. |
|
| Author: | Dobbsy [ Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Siege Assault Vanguard |
Evil and Chaos wrote: Is this list actually needed anymore? It seems to be duplicating the Imperial Fists list fairly closely? I feel a similar way but people should be free to experiment I'm not going to say "no can't include it" because somethings might come out of the 2 lists that might enhance either list etc.
|
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Wed Sep 04, 2013 4:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Siege Assault Vanguard |
Despite that i myself support the idea to drop this list from the Compendium i willtry to develope them further. Well this thread is now almost two years old...ehm. Nevermind. Herre is some playtesting feedbacki got: Thunderfire Cannons are good. Very good indeed. They can garrison, they have long range and with Ignore Cover are very effective against Infantry. Increasing the cost by +25pts tp 275pts for the four unit formation seems appropiate. Land Raider Archilles where only used in a 4000pts game as for smaller games they are perceived as to expensive for their short range. But they seem to have punch if they get into range. Dreadnought Talonis described as "fun to play with" despide being slow and having a low damage output. Lists used where: 2* Siege Terminator + Chaplain 1* Devastatoren mit 2 Siege Devs + Rhino 1* Devastatoren mit 2 Siege Devs + Rhinos und 3 Hunter 1* Tactical mit 2 Siege Tacticals, Supreme, Rhinos, 1 Razorback and 3 Predatoren (BTS) 2* Thunderfire Cannons 1* Siege Dreadnought Talon 1* Marauder Bomber And at 4000pts: Same as above plus: 1* Thunderbolts 1* Warhound Pack 1* Assault Detachment + 2 x Achilles Opponents where Grey Knights and LatD. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
