| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Steel Legion Feedback http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=26149 |
Page 1 of 12 |
| Author: | MikeT [ Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Steel Legion Feedback |
Rug wrote: The Baneblade is still sub par IMO, I'd like to extend the range of the Baneblade Battlecannon to 90cms, apart from being a boost it'll improve the synergy of mixed Baneblade-Shadowsword formations. Possible increase firefight to 3+ as well? It doesn't synergise well with it's new longer range, but it's covered with guns, including a demolisher (Leman Russ Demolisher has FF3+) and a Very Big Battlecannon (capable presumably of shooting Very Big HE shells). |
|
| Author: | kyussinchains [ Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Steel Legion Feedback |
I think a baneblade cannon should have 2 shots, having a massive gun mount means more space for extra loaders and ammo with extra recoil absorbers would justify it IMO.....boosting to FF3+ would also be very welcome, but the 'covered in guns' argument can be countered by the fact that its slow and ponderous and can't use those guns as effectively |
|
| Author: | GlynG [ Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Steel Legion Feedback |
I'm in favour of all those, including FF3+. |
|
| Author: | Spectrar Ghost [ Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Steel Legion Feedback |
I'd get behind everything except the BB changes. Increasing range and shots are probably unjustified from a fluff standpoint, and IMO unneccesary. FF changes would be an (unpreferred) option, but would likely require modifications to Stormhammers, which would become strictly inferior choices once their FF advantage went away. |
|
| Author: | Parintachin [ Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Steel Legion Feedback |
Is the artillery company really that underpowered? |
|
| Author: | MikeT [ Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Steel Legion Feedback |
Parintachin wrote: Is the artillery company really that underpowered? Yes. Or, it suffers from a combination of getting shafted by the barrage table, innability of differing barrage special rules to work together and the fact that its almost certainly going to be your BTS with none of the resilience of a tank company or Reaver. |
|
| Author: | kyussinchains [ Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Steel Legion Feedback |
For less points you can take 2 manticore batteries and have an extra activation and 4 templates It's also a very fragile formation which ends up as BTS in most armies with a decent number of activations I don't see why we need to strictly follow the fluff with the baneblade, right now it's seriously weak at ranges greater than 45cm (and not a great deal better at <45cm either really) a second shot on the battlecannon would help them out and is easily justified as the tank having more crew, ammo and better gun mountings |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Steel Legion Feedback |
Parintachin wrote: Is the artillery company really that underpowered? Yes. It's worth more like 500pts than 600pts IMO! |
|
| Author: | Parintachin [ Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Steel Legion Feedback |
*shrug* well you guys know the scene better than I do. |
|
| Author: | MikeT [ Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Steel Legion Feedback |
Spectrar Ghost wrote: I'd get behind everything except the BB changes. Increasing range and shots are probably unjustified from a fluff standpoint, and IMO unneccesary. FF changes would be an (unpreferred) option, but would likely require modifications to Stormhammers, which would become strictly inferior choices once their FF advantage went away. "Fluff" has remarkably little to say specifically about the BaneBlade's main cannon*, and real world equivalents would certainly support increased range/power/RoF. The StormHammer is a specific city fighting SHT (I think?) so should be throwing buckets of dice in engagements; give it FF +1EA for each main turret or something. *for a long time, it was listed as just a battlecannon and was statted identically to the Leman Russ main gun despite being twice as big. |
|
| Author: | kyussinchains [ Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Steel Legion Feedback |
That's true, when saying 'fluff' do we actually mean 'the 40k rules'? If so, its completely arse-backwards to use the limited, unscaleable skirmish ruleset to stat weapons for epic, epic should be statted on game balance first and 'fluff' reasons a distant second..... |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Steel Legion Feedback |
Am I the only one looking at that list and thinking it is a relatively long list of changes for an army that's been played solidly for years? |
|
| Author: | MikeT [ Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Steel Legion Feedback |
It's a (relatively long) list of changes to an established list, but they're all formations/units that are rarely seen in competitive lists as they all under perform for one reason or another. Ideally any changes wouldn't boost the perceived power of the list as a whole, just give more viable options. The exact same argument is used for the changes to the Space marine list by the way, which includes a price reduction in what should be the core formation (tactical detachment). |
|
| Author: | captPiett [ Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Steel Legion Feedback |
Moscovian wrote: Am I the only one looking at that list and thinking it is a relatively long list of changes for an army that's been played solidly for years? You are not the only one. If you're going to fiddle with the list, it should be done incrementally. In my opinion as a long time IG player, knock the price down on the Artillery company and see how the increased use (if any) affects game balance. That's assuming that there's something seriously wrong with the steel legion list. For the Baneblade, the extra battle cannon shot seems the most promising. The weapon should not have the same range as a volcano cannon. The extra 15cm range will probably not get you much on a board with a proper amount of LoS-blocking terrian on it anyway. |
|
| Page 1 of 12 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|