Tactical Command

Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
Page 3 of 6

Author:  kyussinchains [ Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!

indeed, sorry I missed them earlier, I'm not sure scouts were ever on the bastion transport, but they should be

terminator cost was my mistake

Author:  Andrew_NZ [ Wed Dec 16, 2015 8:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!

Andrew_NZ wrote:
Finally was there a reason that Scouts could not garrison a Bastion? You can get Dreadnoughts, Centurions and Terminators in.
Also there are no Assault units in the army so perhaps they are not needed on the list of transported troops?

Sorry, I must have been looking at the original pdf. The Tournament Pack has Bastion transporting ANY Infantry and also Dreadnoughts. So that obviously does include Scouts. AND ALSO Thudd Guns and other such fire support. Cool somewhere less contrived to put the attached Support Battery.
Transport. May transport eight infantry units or Dreadnoughts; Terminator units and Dreadnoughts count as two units each.

Author:  Dave [ Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!

Ya, I just grabbed the THawk transport line and dropped Attack Bikes.

Author:  Andrew_NZ [ Sat Dec 19, 2015 10:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!

Was just checking through adding mechanised thudd guns to a Tactical / Devastator formation.

Blip wrote:
Quick question on thud guns and rapiers - can they be transported and if so does their addition add rhinos to their formation? Sorry if I've missed this being clarified somewhere.

We've Played it so far as not, but one of my ex-forces buds found it strange that a mobile force would deploy support weapons without, and I guess a rhino could easily tow either... Though this obviously has points and balance issues in epic.

kyussinchains wrote:
Yes they can be, taking up two slots each, will update on the next revision

Based on the entries at the moment this is not in fact possible.
Thudd guns and Rapiers count as Terminators for transport.
Rhinos expressly forbid the transport of Terminators; so can't transport (tow) them.

Author:  kyussinchains [ Sat Dec 19, 2015 11:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!

Another oversight..... they can be transported in rhinos but take two slots

Author:  Andrew_NZ [ Sat Dec 19, 2015 6:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!

Thanks, I'd thought that was the intention until I started checking through.

Remember my first ever tournament wargame saw me deploying a Soviet Artillery Regiment of D-30s
supported a defensive screen of infantry in BTR-60PAs. Tactical formation with support battery equals, . . . nostalgia.

Author:  Dave [ Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!

You're all set with the thudd gun and rapier transport, and terminator cost now kyuss.

Author:  kyussinchains [ Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!

Many thanks Dave :)

Author:  Andrew_NZ [ Tue Dec 29, 2015 12:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!

Well my Pan European OGRE/GEV force had its first outing as Imperial Fists.
Battle report will doubtless appear at some point on Mark's Hordes of Things Blog

My next question, about a situation that did not occur in that battle, relates to the
transported "passengers" in a Bastion. The rule (transport note) says that occupants
can use their Fire Fight values in an assault. Would this apply if the Bastion were
subjected to Close Combat assault?

As written I think it means that the garrison could always firefight. This would make sense
because the walls etc keep the attackers out of close combat range and the defenders are in
prepared firing positions - possibly some distance back from those walls. They also are not
permitted to use close combat factors.

On the other hand, you could say they are part of the bastion and fight as that fights, . . .
No CC factor, can FF if some of opponents are not in base (CC) contact. As a warengine
the bastion can opt for FF if some enemy are at firefight range, . . .
This would seem pretty harsh on the garrison of an immobile position, especially since if the
bastion is destroyed in the assault (it takes ALL of the hits) the passengers all take a hit, which
would nicely simulate the attackers breaking into the position.

So I think from the above I support the top option (as I read the rule). But wanted to check
what is intended.

Unrelated, and entirely to satisfy my curiosity, what was the thinking behind the switch from
saying bunkers conferred a RA4+ save on infantry, into, the 4+ cover save that works against MW
and that also provides a 4+ cover save re-roll for non-MW attacks. I can see that it disadvantages
Lance hits, but can't see what else is affected. TK hits will still wipe out units without a save.

Happy New Year to ALL

Author:  Markconz [ Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!

Battle report here, 4K Black Legion vs Imperial Fists.

Author:  kyussinchains [ Wed Dec 30, 2015 7:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!

Andrew: the transported troops may always firefight, even when the bastion has no ff targets

On the new wording for the bunker save, that was Dave's call with the TP

Author:  Mard [ Mon Apr 04, 2016 5:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!

Just something to add

The TP does not have listed anywhere the min/max dimensions for the Bastion. Could we get this rectified?

Also i see that is has a maximum of 80mm. Is this just in length? Is there a max to Depth?
(Just wondering so I can start scratch building one)

Author:  kyussinchains [ Mon Apr 04, 2016 7:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!

It's a max of 80mm in any dimension (as it's a war engine I didnt want people making crazy bananas shapes to game the thing)!)

There probably should be a minimum dimension too....

Author:  kyussinchains [ Wed Apr 06, 2016 10:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!

I've had a chat with Mard regarding the IF list, one of the concerns raised by his club is that the IF list with a warlord is very powerful indeed, the example list given to me was as follows:

6 Tactical units, Librarian

6 Tactical units, Librarian

4 Terminator units, Chaplain

5 Land speeder

5 Land speeder

SCOUTS [250]
4 Scout units, Supreme Commander

1 Bastion, Techmarine


3 Hyperios Platforms

SCOUTS [150]
4 Scout units

I'm fairly sure the tacticals sit in bunkers on objectives, terminators deal with ranged threats and the warlord stomps around and sits on T&H objectives

now I've played a warlord list with marines a few times and found it was easy to play for the draw, but often hard to close games out, this list however has many resilient units and it could be a challenge to shift them all, I'm planning on running it a couple of times against a couple of different lists, would appreciate some more tests from different groups and metagames to highlight what action should be taken

Author:  Beefcake4000 [ Sun Apr 10, 2016 8:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!

I think it's a solid build with lots of good synergies. I can imagine Mard would put a bunkered set of tacticals on 2 objectives and a bastion on the third so really solid objective defence. That then leaves the warlord to march into the enemy army and the speeders and scouts to trigger engagements with the warlord providing the backup.

Certainly a tough build but not op in my mind. It's not super fast and IF lose the alpha strike assaults so famous in marines gotta have something to compensate for it.

IFs are a great list to build marines from.

Page 3 of 6 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group