| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Hunter Formation http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=7034 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | CAL001 [ Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hunter Formation |
What is you vote for, do they need a formation and what size should it be? Cheers CAL |
|
| Author: | Ilushia [ Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hunter Formation |
I went for 3 at 225. Normally I don't like 3-model units (they're much too fragile) but because of ATSKNF I'd field such a unit. They have long-range fire and can be backups to Predator Annihilators if you really need the extra AT fire. They're not that well defended, but are quite nice as AA guns when fielded in large groups... I also think they should be made somewhat better, but I'm not entirely sure HOW to make them better without making them too good. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hunter Formation |
I voted no formation, I'm not sure that the background supports such a thing. Marines are all about combined arms, concentrating AA weapons in this manner seems to be against the Marine ethos, which seems to be more about small, self-sufficient formations. Happy to change my opine if I'm wrong. |
|
| Author: | CAL001 [ Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hunter Formation |
I agree that Marines are the combined arms team army, and that there is no fluff to support a formation as it is a new unit, with little or no backgound at all. Does that no then let us have scope to create a formation. The only other AA unit I have seen background for is the Hyperios missile system on Whirlwind and LR. I think that a formation of AA fills a gap that marines have in air cover. I also like them in formations but find that they get suppressed or destroyed before doing their job. A formation reduces the likelyhood of suppression and gives you a manoeuvre group to use on the table. If you cant have a formation, then what is the cost of the upgrade and how many do you allow 0-1 is not an option, dead or supressed to easily. And as discussed in the other post 75 points is crap, to expensive against like capabilitied units for no real reason. My thoughts CAL |
|
| Author: | ortron [ Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Hunter Formation |
I'm going with the 4 strong unit since 4 seems to be the number of choice for SM armour. As far as rarity is concerned make them a 0-1 choice if they become too much of a problem? I see no fluff reasons why this unit should not exist since. |
|
| Author: | CAL001 [ Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Hunter Formation |
This isn't very promising, any more comments from the forum. I dont have much to go on. Any comments are welcome to add to the debate. Cheers CAL |
|
| Author: | Morg [ Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Hunter Formation |
I'd like to see a reduction in points to at least 60 or 50 and have Hunters as attachments to normal units (0-2). I see no fluff which says that the Marines have dedicated Hunter formations  So I've voted for no formation, instead up the maximum to 2 in a unit. Apart from that it adds a tiny little bit of character to the list without being too much of a disadvantage.
|
|
| Author: | J0k3r [ Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hunter Formation |
I agree with an earlier suggestion of keeping them at 75 points but boosting thair attributes to be AT4+/AA3+ and allowing them to be attached at 0-2. It keeps the combined arms feel and makes them more reliable AA units. As I see SM weapons they should have fewer attacks, but be more precise/effective than weapons of other armies. If they were to be used en mass I would say a formation of 4 to keep in fitting with the SM unit sizes. However such a formation would be number one on my priority of things to destroy with bikes/fast troops. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|