Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 161 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Saim-Hann Craftworld 4.2****Going for approval*****

 Post subject: Re: Saim-Hann Craftworld 4.2****Going for approval*****
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2016 10:40 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:00 pm
Posts: 924
Location: Toronto
Paradox wrote:
10cm counter charge rule opinion: this is a universal rule and I don't see it unduly impacting/benefiting the Siam Hann list. Works for:
SM : Rhinos, Predators, Bikes, Land Speeders
IG: Chimers, Valkyries
ATML: Warhounds
Ork: Warbikes, Scorchas, Warbuggies, Battle/Flak/Gun Wagons
Eldar: Jetbikes, Vypers, Falcons...
Chaos: Rhinos, Predators, Deathwheels, Feral Titans, some Greater Demons


Granted its a Universal rule for everyone but I disagree that it isn't much more exploitable for the Saim-Hann. Nearly all the formations in the list can do it AND nearly every unit in each formation can as well, which is a big distinction. This is amplified by context. Supporting fire is great to have and can really turn the tide of battle. Any formation with troops that move under 30 (nearly all) in transports (that move over 30) while yes the transports can do this the troops can't and its much much harder to execute as the slower troops allow for an additional 5cm support window due to their limited move. Single warengines don't count either as they are a single unit and are locked into place by the assaulting formation. All the AV formations listed can countercharge the 10cm yes but they are by no means even close to as powerful in assault and an assault centric formation has reasonable chance at winning an assault when engaging them.

This limits it down to a few other examples of formations similar attributes. All that immediately come to mind are knight Lancers, Ork cult of speed, Jetbikes, marine bikes and Wind riders. Normal Jetbikes and Marine bikes are small formations and don't have nearly the punch of 13 units. Orks have well known disadvantages to mitigate it. Yeah the Lancers fit the bill they are also monsters arguably stronger but you will see far few formations of them in a Knight list than Windriders in a Saim-Hann list. Windriders are very powerful core formations in a very powerful (many very strong special rules arguably the best aside from Sarab conflict Necrons) list. My point is less about having an issue with countercharge moves of 10cm and more about how many of the formations have it and the list not having any draw backs to offset the power of the special rules and exploitable bonuses.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group


Last edited by atension on Thu Apr 14, 2016 1:16 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Saim-Hann Craftworld 4.2****Going for approval*****
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2016 11:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2442
Location: UK
Personally I'm not sure the inv save is needed at this scale, it'd still feel like saim hann without it.

Atension I imagine the intermingling was because of expecting to win initiative and do a combined assault with the avatar.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Saim-Hann Craftworld 4.2****Going for approval*****
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 12:08 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 4:38 pm
Posts: 101
Location: Toronto, Canada
Atension,
Not sure I follow you. My confusion stems from your use of term "supporting fire" as it relates to the Counter Charge move of 10cm for those units with 30cm or more move within the Engaged formation(of which all units in the Siam Hann list have except for the Engines of Vaul). As it relates to formations "supporting fire" to help with other Engagements.

Formations may only counter charge if they are Engaged in an assault. And can only counter charge to move towards the closest enemy unit (with the goal of getting into base contact if possible).

Formations Not Engaged by the enemy formation but within 15cm of an enemy unit (and LOS) directly involved in the assault can use supporting fire. They cannot move.

I feel like you are combining Supporting Fire (1.12.6) with a Counter Charge move ((1.12.4), which is not correct.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am confused by your concern and seek to understand.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Saim-Hann Craftworld 4.2****Going for approval*****
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 12:17 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:00 pm
Posts: 924
Location: Toronto
Kyrt wrote:
Personally I'm not sure the inv save is needed at this scale, it'd still feel like saim hann without it.

Atension I imagine the intermingling was because of expecting to win initiative and do a combined assault with the avatar.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk


Oh yes of course! I keep miss remembering it as 15cm distance for the commander ability.
In this instance what would other people do? Risk the initiative with the intermingled formations or risk the avatar dying in solo assault and not getting to support with the windriders? Statistically the later might be the better option. No MW attacks from the titan and the avatar could likely assault from a side out of the laser burner arc range. 6x 3+ attacks = 4 hits 4 hits against 3+ armour is 1 to 2 DC at most. Then you get all that supporting fire and your aren't down an activation and if you lose combat the supporting formations only get 1 to two BMs at worst. If you lose the iniative the avatar is screening the wind riders should it assault or shoot them sustained, since it's a WE.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group


Last edited by atension on Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Saim-Hann Craftworld 4.2****Going for approval*****
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 12:27 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:00 pm
Posts: 924
Location: Toronto
Paradox wrote:
Atension,
Not sure I follow you. My confusion stems from your use of term "supporting fire" as it relates to the Counter Charge move of 10cm for those units with 30cm or more move within the Engaged formation(of which all units in the Siam Hann list have except for the Engines of Vaul). As it relates to formations "supporting fire" to help with other Engagements.

Formations may only counter charge if they are Engaged in an assault. And can only counter charge to move towards the closest enemy unit (with the goal of getting into base contact if possible).

Formations Not Engaged by the enemy formation but within 15cm of an enemy unit (and LOS) directly involved in the assault can use supporting fire. They cannot move.

I feel like you are combining Supporting Fire (1.12.6) with a Counter Charge move ((1.12.4), which is not correct.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am confused by your concern and seek to understand.


Didn't mean to suggested that formations could move and supporting fire if I did, thats not what I was getting at. Only that every unit in nearly every formation can exploit evasion of the opponents supporting fire. A formation counter charging simply to avoid the assaulting players formations in supporting range is quite a bit more powerful for formations consisting of the following. Formations with a lot of units, formations that are very assault focused, formations consisting of units all with move 30cm or greater. This is true for all lists with formations like this (of which there are only a few that I can think of as previously mentioned) though no other list has as many formations that can do this (aside from possibly speedfreaks). I am just getting at the fact that other armies that are assault focused cant do this and will have massive difficulties facing this army, and that's even ignoring that they are all also skimmers. Tactically speaking assault focused formations/lists are disadvantaged against Saim-Hann. The Saim-hann list in its current state markedly compounds the rock-paper-scissors dynamic, except in this case its more like rock, paper, Bazooka. (haha its entirely possible that I'm being over sensitive to power-creep too)
I really don't think that the windrider formations should have 2x3 jetbike upgrades. Should also drop the inv save and don't reduce the formation cost as a result.
Also curious about the inclusion of wraithgates. I'm not the most knowledgeable about Eldar fluff but I always associated Saim-Hann with a fast strike nomatic raider type army and so wouldn't have wraithgates sitting around. What about dropping the wraithgates aswell. They add a considerable amount of potency to the list.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Saim-Hann Craftworld 4.2****Going for approval*****
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 9:46 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2442
Location: UK
Atension I have to say I think you're over emphasising the effect of countercharge quite a bit. In my experience what you describe in theory is actually fairly rare to pull off in practice. Mainly because you have to countercharge towards the nearest enemy, not the assaulting formation. Especially with a larger formation, occasions where all of the assaulted units are able to move in a single direction entirely out of support range would seem quite rare (to me).

The assaulter has to choose how to position the units. If he wants support, his supporting units need to be within 15cm of the same units that are within 15cm of the assaulting formation, which you have a few options for:
1. If you assault from the same direction (i.e. adjacent to your support), then countercharges will be moving towards support, not away from it.
2. If you assault from the opposite side of the formation then, to get within 15 of the directly engaged units, your supporting units will be closer to the "back" of the target formation than your assaulting formation is. Certainly that is the case if the target is a large-ish formation or is spread out (due to potential barrages). Remember you only need the support formation to be in range and closer to a single unit in the target formation to prevent them counter-charging away:
Attachment:
countercharge towards support.png
countercharge towards support.png [ 5.56 KiB | Viewed 1760 times ]


The only way I see a large formation of jetbikes being able to get completely out of countercharge range is if the attacker deliberately moves their assaulting units up very close or in base contact AND has left their support quite far away. That will likely place the enemy's back units closer to your engaging formation than your support.
Attachment:
countercharge towards assault.png
countercharge towards assault.png [ 4.55 KiB | Viewed 1760 times ]


But against wind riders there is literally no advantage to doing that because you can't CC them anyway. Just keep them as far away as you can - if the jetbikes are countercharging towards you, it means you didn't have any support units close enough in the first place and the 10cm countercharge is not a factor.

What 10cm countercharging jetbikes are good at however, is not being clipped. They generally have the move to be able to get all their bikes to fight. But again, placement of support (closer to the formation than the assaulting one) can prevent that too:
Attachment:
countercharge can't stop clip.png
countercharge can't stop clip.png [ 6.23 KiB | Viewed 1760 times ]

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Saim-Hann Craftworld 4.2****Going for approval*****
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 1:03 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:00 pm
Posts: 924
Location: Toronto
Lol turns out my counter charge argument is a little moot. Was a rule disagreement in the last game where the rule version we had didn't specify "directly towards", so all kinds of trickery could be used when performing the counter charge.

Regardless I still think the 13 strong formations should be limited to 10 and the validity of including the wraithgate in the list be put under review.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group


Last edited by atension on Thu Apr 14, 2016 6:53 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Saim-Hann Craftworld 4.2****Going for approval*****
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 4:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:23 pm
Posts: 304
Location: Newcastle, UK
Has anyone tried this army against a CC orientated army like Tyranids? I can see the almost complete inability to get into CC might bring out the rock/paper/scissors effect

Sent from my 4027X using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Saim-Hann Craftworld 4.2****Going for approval*****
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 8:29 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4800
Location: North Yorkshire
flyingthruwater wrote:
Has anyone tried this army against a CC orientated army like Tyranids? I can see the almost complete inability to get into CC might bring out the rock/paper/scissors effect

Yes, or versions thereof. The CC lists can still win, but it takes a lot of work to get the BM in place & clip with supporting formations pinning the counter charges. Difficult, but not impossible.

I played a game on Friday night and will get a video report up sometime.

The game was against Marines and the SH won 2-0 at the end of turn 3. Things were looking bad for the SH until the end of turn two when 4 out of 6 formations rallied & the SM Thunderbolts were shot out of the sky, to give the SH an activation advantage which allowed them to win the game. (SM won all three roll offs which did not help the SH, but they still won.)

The list I used had two scout formations, this will be dropped to one for the next game & some Night Spinners added instead.

I would suggest that the Scout formation goes up to 200pts and the Hornets are set at 5 for 250pts rather than allowing these cheap smaller formations to bulk out the list when large Windrider formations are being used.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion


Last edited by Tiny-Tim on Thu Apr 21, 2016 9:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Saim-Hann Craftworld 4.2****Going for approval*****
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 9:36 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 11:34 pm
Posts: 426
I can't see any reason to increase the scout formations.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Saim-Hann Craftworld 4.2****Going for approval*****
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:11 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4800
Location: North Yorkshire
Tim_nz wrote:
I can't see any reason to increase the scout formations.

The reason from my point of view is that the additional points spent on these and Hornets would restrict the points for upgrading the basic formations.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Saim-Hann Craftworld 4.2****Going for approval*****
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 3:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 4:38 pm
Posts: 101
Location: Toronto, Canada
I too feel that the scout jetbike squad is very attractive at 175pts. My suggestion is 200pts for the formation.
I feel that the Hornet squad of 5 units for 250pts is not as attractive as 250pts Falcon (3) + Firestorm (2) formation. My suggestion is to drop Scout from the Hornets and make them 250pts for a formation of 6 (no upgrades).

The above would force some compremises regarding activiation count due to point costs as well as encourage tougher decisions regarding Hornet use over Swords of Vaul formations.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Saim-Hann Craftworld 4.2****Going for approval*****
PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 12:36 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5467
Location: London, UK
I have to say I agree with the notion of raising the cost of the scout bikes to 200. With the lists as it currently is, I quite fancy the following list to test spamming bikes, recreating something I tried some years ago intended as an assault orientated list:-

400 Wild rider clan + bikes + Chieftain
375 Guardians + WG
250 Falcons inc Firestorms
275 Wild rider clan + Farseer
175 Scout bikes
175 Scout bikes
350 Shining Spears + Ex + Ex
200 Scout bikes + Farseer
175 Scout bikes
250 Wild rider clan
200 Scout bikes + Farseer
175 Scout bikes

The idea is four groups each containing a Farseer and two other formations to permit the Farseers to 'command' large assaults as needed.
  • The Guardians with WG will make a solid assault group, the Falcons providing a degree of AA protection.
  • In the past I have used Shining Spears with two jet bike groups to destroy Reaver titans.
  • The Scout bikes with Farseers should make very usefull first strike group(s) from a garrisoned position.
  • The four Farseers give a fair chance of getting the Avatar into a strong assaulting position
  • Each group should probably have one or two jetbikes to allow the placing of BMs to prep assaults

However, 'Real Life' has intervened this year preventing me doing the testing I intended and I need three more bike units to field this. If / when I get to do some testing I may have to use some proxies . . .


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Saim-Hann Craftworld 4.2****Going for approval*****
PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 12:50 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:00 pm
Posts: 924
Location: Toronto
Ginger wrote:
I have to say I agree with the notion of raising the cost of the scout bikes to 200. With the lists as it currently is, I quite fancy the following list to test spamming bikes, recreating something I tried some years ago intended as an assault orientated list:-

400 Wild rider clan + bikes + Chieftain
375 Guardians + WG
250 Falcons inc Firestorms
275 Wild rider clan + Farseer
175 Scout bikes
175 Scout bikes
350 Shining Spears + Ex + Ex
200 Scout bikes + Farseer
175 Scout bikes
250 Wild rider clan
200 Scout bikes + Farseer
175 Scout bikes

The idea is four groups each containing a Farseer and two other formations to permit the Farseers to 'command' large assaults as needed.
  • The Guardians with WG will make a solid assault group, the Falcons providing a degree of AA protection.
  • In the past I have used Shining Spears with two jet bike groups to destroy Reaver titans.
  • The Scout bikes with Farseers should make very usefull first strike group(s) from a garrisoned position.
  • The four Farseers give a fair chance of getting the Avatar into a strong assaulting position
  • Each group should probably have one or two jetbikes to allow the placing of BMs to prep assaults

However, 'Real Life' has intervened this year preventing me doing the testing I intended and I need three more bike units to field this. If / when I get to do some testing I may have to use some proxies . . .


I think you missed the new revision (which is at the top of Page 9 under this thread). There is a 0-1 restriction on the scout formations per Wild Rider Clan formation. Also don't think there is an option for putting farseers in the scout formations.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Saim-Hann Craftworld 4.2****Going for approval*****
PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 1:49 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5467
Location: London, UK
Ah, my bad - though I am sure that something similar can be put together :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 161 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net