Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

What does the community want from an imperial fists list?
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=26611		 Page 1 of 6
Author:  kyussinchains [ Sun Jan 05, 2014 9:41 pm ]
Post subject:  What does the community want from an imperial fists list?
Hello,

I had a vision for the Imperial Fists, but turns out I'm dead wrong about everything.... ;)

I thought I'd put up a poll and see what the community wants from this list... I'm happy to work on what the majority want while trying to satisfy everyone else, but it would be really good to get an idea of something to work towards so that I don't end up with endless arguments, after all it's not my list, it's the community's list and I'd rather get something into circulation that people actually want to play

this is your chance to have a say on the structure of the list, please keep all comments friendly and respectful... all opinions considered and open for discussion
Author:  dptdexys [ Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What does the community want from an imperial fists list
I voted something else, an old style Imperial fist army list (pre-lets get the muppets to by lots of new stuff Codex: Imperial Fists/Sentinels of Terra).
Probably a mix of assault and defence with the option to take certain units depending on which style you want to play.
Author:  Dobbsy [ Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: What does the community want from an imperial fists list
dptdexys wrote:
I voted something else, an old style Imperial fist army list (pre-lets get the muppets to by lots of new stuff Codex: Imperial Fists/Sentinels of Terra).
Probably a mix of assault and defence with the option to take certain units depending on which style you want to play.

+1 to everything Dexys said.
Author:  jimmyzimms [ Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: What does the community want from an imperial fists list
Quote:
As near as possible to Codex: Imperial Fists/Sentinels of Terra as possible

I don't know at all what's contained in that. I'd wager that many people on the boards would be in the same place too, having left modern 40k silliness behind, long ago. It'd really be good to give a concrete example what each of those options above would mean (what you would put in and the corresponding "thing" that's left out/hard to do).
Author:  kyussinchains [ Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: What does the community want from an imperial fists list
I've not actually read the codex yet, it's on my 'To do' list, and frankly I'm not excited about it from what I hear...

the modern imperial fists list would include centurions, thunder hammer terminators (possibly alongside regular terminators), special pop-up fortifications which are destroyable, thunderhawks, siege dreadnoughts, and spacecraft

they also appear to be stubborn to the point of stupidity, refusing to retreat even when it is sensible to do so, and throwing their lives away needlessly.....

that's what I get from speaking with Glyn about them.... my concern is that they seem to have all the regular marine toys with a bunch of extra stuff too.... seems a bit too generalist for a variant list IMO
Author:  Dobbsy [ Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: What does the community want from an imperial fists list
The way I see it Kyuss, if there's shite you don't like in the new codex, leave it out. Simple :) I used the Space Wolves codex as a basis and completely left the Chunderwolves out - a stupid inclusion to a nice background. I think you'll find most of us would prefer a sensible list rather than a "throwaway your lives" design. Maybe just stick to the basic principle of the IF (siege/attack etc) and leave out the controversial/ridiculous. Essentially, do what your comfortable with.

edit - Remember that the IF list isn't necessarily solely the IF list, as players are free to base their own armies on the list.
Author:  jimmyzimms [ Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: What does the community want from an imperial fists list
Assault Termies, fortifications (ala the altered objectives discussed in another thread),lots of vindicators and thrownm Thunderfire guns sounds great to me. Put arty style titans and ditch warhound singleton and you've got a pretty different play style emphasizing armor and fortifications.. The question is then inverse of this list for attack (ala Minotaurs via Siege Assault Vanguard) and if you try to roll everything into one OR build two complimentary lists.
Author:  GlynG [ Mon Jan 06, 2014 5:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: What does the community want from an imperial fists list
I don't think you were that wrong, mostly just some typos and errors. I support multiple of the options, ideally Siege defence with Centurions, limited air and some kind of stubborn rule for me.

Centurions don't have to be added, but it would be appropriate as they use them a lot in 40k. It would make the list more different and give players an Epic list to use Centurions in if they particularly like them for some reason. Your call as list champ on these though.

You really should follow 40k and existing precedents to some extent though e.g. using the existing epic Assault Terminator stats and not inventing a new version with Heavy Flamers when 40k Assault Terminators can have no ranged weapons.

Quote:
I've not actually read the codex yet, it's on my 'To do' list, and frankly I'm not excited about it from what I hear...
While hardly high literature the background and portrayal of the Fists is actually not that bad, you should give it a quick read over at some point.

Quote:
the modern imperial fists list would include centurions, thunder hammer terminators (possibly alongside regular terminators), special pop-up fortifications which are destroyable, thunderhawks, siege dreadnoughts, and spacecraft

Centurions and Assault Terminators are perhaps the most significant additions by reading the Imperial Fists codex, stuff like the siege dreadnought isn't mentioned in it, but it's an existing FW unit and if it fits anywhere it's in a siege list. Fortifications in a defensive siege list would be logical, making them the drop fortress or destroyable are just possible suggestions people have made.
Quote:
I don't know at all what's contained in that. I'd wager that many people on the boards would be in the same place too, having left modern 40k silliness behind, long ago.

It's been many years since I quit playing 40k for good, but I still keep tabs on the newer stuff and like to use it to inspire and broadly guide epic development. Most of us are older players but it would be good to find a balance between new and old, leaving out and avoiding bits we choose, but keeping aware and adopting the good bits.

Incidentally modern codexes and the like are easy to find online to have a read over, you don't have to pay for it.
Author:  Commander Sims [ Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: What does the community want from an imperial fists list
I voted other, tho I'm unsure why that 'other' is. I have a general understanding of the imperial fists fluff (fortification builders/defenders), but from what I know I'm not sure their is enough to warrant a variant list. I guess you could make them a siege list (inc. fortifications/bunkers etc.), they would then add the option of using a regular marine list as an alternative. The other thing to take into consideration (which I'm sure you have) is the bigger picture, 40k rule books are for squad based warfare whereas epic is more inclusive of the whole battle space, on a much larger space. If the fists' fluff uniquely encompasses this space then maybe their is room for a divergent list. All the best Kyuss.
Author:  MikeT [ Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What does the community want from an imperial fists list
This would be so much easier if lists were titles something along the lines of "Siege Assault Vanguard, as typified by the Imperial Fists", then list managers wouldn't feel pressured into including all the new crud in the latest chapter codex and would make explicit that these lists are only representative of a specific chapter most common tactics, and can indeed represent many other chapters (i'm sure Ultramarines have been forced to use trenches sometime in the last ten thousand years for instance)

That said, I can't see any massive reason to try and shoe horn in things like the Centurions; if "assault marines" are supposed to represent actual assault marines, as well as 1st company vets and Sternguard vets, then "terminators" can represent Centurions as well.
Author:  Dobbsy [ Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What does the community want from an imperial fists list
MikeT wrote:
This would be so much easier if lists were titles something along the lines of "Siege Assault Vanguard, as typified by the Imperial Fists"

Was thinking the exact same thing today Mike :)

SM Siege
SM Air Assault
SM Armoured/Ground Assault
SM Drop

But I am diverging from the OT. Carry on. :)
Author:  kyussinchains [ Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What does the community want from an imperial fists list
I agree with mike, but it's always nice to be able to incidentally satisfy the fluff nuts....
Author:  Commander Sims [ Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What does the community want from an imperial fists list
kyussinchains wrote:
I agree with mike, but it's always nice to be able to incidentally satisfy the fluff nuts....


As a fluff nut, I agree. Maybe a set of generic lists could be created with suggested associated chapters. As a Crimson Fists fan there's not a lot that can be done to create a divergent list (other than hatred Orks or reduced numbers), but I could maybe fit them into a slightly specialised list. Would help to add a little flavour from time to time.
Author:  LordotMilk [ Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What does the community want from an imperial fists list
I would be in favour of a defense oriented list, with access to some kind of defensive positions.

I also believe SM siege armies would make intensive use of drop troops, and SM do have access to Caestus assault rams, which are ideally used in Siege Warfare.

So, an interesting list would be something akin to FB's work with added drop troop options for the siege assault.

Finally, though this first poll is useful in identifying the main trend support, perhaps a second poll with less options would help identifying a definite concept better.

With regards to GW fists and current GW fluff, I do believe that we should get the feel of a siege army as much as possible from them, as we are not designing a different universe, but only converting GW WH40k to Epic scale. However, nothing stops an IF player to use both the Siege list and the Codex list alternatively to field his yellow dudes, so the IF list per se can focus on siege warfare.
Author:  MikeT [ Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What does the community want from an imperial fists list
Would you have siege/trenchworks and a spacecraft though? Surely having access to the second (along with it's drop pods and flying war engines) would obviate the need for the first?
Page 1 of 6 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/