Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Thunderhawks

 Post subject: Re: Thunderhawks
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:39 pm
Posts: 81
Location: Banjoland
Limit thunderhawk to 1 per 1000 pts...?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thunderhawks
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:28 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5453
Location: London, UK
Ahh, my bad. I was forgetting a key factor here.

You need to spam the TBolts as well, so trying to limit the Air transports in isolation doesn’t work no matter how ‘elegant’ the solution if it doesn’t link in the TBolts as well. From memory the Thunderdick list has 6x THawks and 5x TBolts as well as termies and scouts to control / contest objectives.
Sorry for the digression


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thunderhawks
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:38 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5453
Location: London, UK
Elrik wrote:
Limit thunderhawk to 1 per 1000 pts...?
That falls foul of the quite fluffy 1st company termie list with 5x termies in THawks planetfalling etc.

My “1 a/c per 500 points” rule is the cleanest, since it does not affect the existing list in any way and also prevents any shenanigans with Landing Craft. However it did not find favour with the E-UK guys for some reason, so may also be rejected here.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Thunderhawks
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:18 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 8:01 pm
Posts: 1456
Ok, first off a correction but an important one. The list in question has terminators with a chaplain as BTS and that unit is absolutely crucial. It’s what gets the list blitz/T&H and or BTS on turn 3. Scout spam is not an issue with this list. It runs 2 units. That’s it.

Next, the same list under netea rules with the 175 t-bolts won 5 out of 5 at the EEC last year. So that’s no protection.

Ginger, I appreciate your concern, but at the moment the landing craft list is hypothetical (partly as RichardL and I never got our games to test it actually played cos I was sick).

Kyuss, I fully support this change, and I’m pretty sure Dan1314 who created the list does too.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thunderhawks
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:46 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5172
Location: Bristol
I support the 1/3 change. Landing Craft and others seem fine as they are.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thunderhawks
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:05 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5453
Location: London, UK
Putting THawks in the 1/3 spacecraft titans and aircraft restrictions section does work, though it also invalidates certain builds that are currently valid eg with battle titans (Warlord or Reaver, and TBolt air-cover), and some of the past tournament lists that were valid that included twin Warhounds and twin THawks.

I agree it is far better than nothing, and that something needs to be done.

I would just prefer using the “1 a/c per 500 points” rule, which would also allow these builds as well.
Then we wouldn’t even have to test the LC list, or risk someone blighting a tournament with it, even if it isn’t quite as bad as the thunderdick list.
‘Nuff said :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thunderhawks
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:32 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6153
Location: Leicester UK
If I were starting from scratch, I would stipulate that marines in general should have reduced access to titans anyway, I certainly push that agenda with newer lists unless they have close ties to admech (like Iron Hands for example) or are not fighting in a typically marine-y surgical strike fashion (like Imperial Fists) it doesn't make much sense from a fluff POV to have stompy robots in every marine operation

the titans point is a bit of a red herring anyway IMO, unless you're taking a warlord titan, you can still fit thunderhawks into the list if you like, you can still take two thunderhawks and two warhounds at 3k

shaking up the meta a little is rarely a bad thing in my experience

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thunderhawks
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:48 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5453
Location: London, UK
Ok, thanks for your patience guys.

So in summary while putting the THawks in the Spaceships 1/3 fixes the THawks + TBolts list, we are in effect issuing a dare / invitation to others to try out the equivalent LC + TBolt spam.

Now I have always said that the LC TBolt spam list is not as good as the THawk list, but win, draw or lose, it still gives the opponent a boring game - or in a tournament, 3-5 opponents - and it will beat some lists hands down, (marines, Eldar etc) and those newcomers / others who have limited AA and / or place it poorly.

With great respect, this is not just about the list, but also about the people who play against it. And it’s not just about the game at 3k (where we agree the LC build will struggle), but also at bigger army builds, where the LC build becomes much more viable.

I just want to remove this possibility now, even if it isn’t really viable, for the good of the game and the tournament scene, to avoid the effect it will have on other army builds and army developments (eg the proposed extended range on Hellblades weapons). And if we have the means to do this, it is more preferable IMO than having TO straying down the slippery slope of excluding certain builds that are considered OTT. The list must be written in such a way as to make builds valid or invalid. Does that make more sense?

And thanks again for your patience


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thunderhawks
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:09 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6153
Location: Leicester UK
but the LC and thunderbolt spam list is noticably less effective than the thunderhawk one which should be offputting enough that folks decide not to run it competetively.... yes it's no fun, but it's also not nearly as potent, that combination is the limiting factor here

it's not *just* about the lack of fun facing the ThunderHawkBoltSpam(TM) list, it's also about competetiveness, and the proposed LC list has 5 fewer 75cm AT4+ shots per turn, has to expose itself much more, and the LC has exactly the same risk of being critted out of the sky as a thunderhawk does (1/24 to be exact)

plus, if the LandingCraftThunderBoltSwarm(TM) list turns out to be ludicrously powerful, we can actually change the list again because amazingly enough, that is how an iterative development process actually works ;)

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thunderhawks
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:15 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 8474
Location: Worcester, MA
What's the max number of Thunderhawks that people think should be in a 3k list?

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2018-05-15 | Raven Guard 2018-04-23


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thunderhawks
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5453
Location: London, UK
Well kyuss, you are right that it can be changed later and it is your call, so I guess we will just have to wait to find out, possibly through some tourneys which is what I was trying to avoid. :(

As to your question Dave, 5x THawks in isolation is not a particular issue. It is quite strong, but cannot cripple an army over three turns. However it does become potent when combined with 5x TBolts, because the extra air assaults beat up formations unopposed. This is why I recommended a limit of 1 A/c per 500 points, or six a/c total at 3k, eight at 4K.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thunderhawks
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:39 pm
Posts: 81
Location: Banjoland
Kyussinchains has convinced me to support the 1/3, so I’d say 5 :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thunderhawks
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:51 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 8:01 pm
Posts: 1456
kyussinchains wrote:
but the LC and thunderbolt spam list is noticably less effective than the thunderhawk one which should be offputting enough that folks decide not to run it competetively.... yes it's no fun, but it's also not nearly as potent, that combination is the limiting factor here

it's not *just* about the lack of fun facing the ThunderHawkBoltSpam(TM) list, it's also about competetiveness, and the proposed LC list has 5 fewer 75cm AT4+ shots per turn, has to expose itself much more, and the LC has exactly the same risk of being critted out of the sky as a thunderhawk does (1/24 to be exact)

plus, if the LandingCraftThunderBoltSwarm(TM) list turns out to be ludicrously powerful, we can actually change the list again because amazingly enough, that is how an iterative development process actually works ;)


Totally agree Kyuss, the reason to play the thunderhawk list is that it is ultra-competitive. If you were playing in that way (and I like to think of myself as a player who is competitive at the top level) you wouldn’t then take a far less effective variant on that theme. You’d shift to playing Krieg or something else top tier.

Lastly, people spam stuff all the time at tournies and its very rarely the most effective build. I can think of at least 5 spam lists run at tournaments last year and only Dan’s won an event, with Jon’s shadowsword spam finishing 3rd at another (after my biel tann list which plenty of people have told me is pretty sub-optimal gave it a bit of kicking in game 3).

As you say, if someone comes up with a new build and it proves to be crazily powerful it can also be looked at.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thunderhawks
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 3:16 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 6:42 am
Posts: 480
Location: Birchip, Australia
I like the thunderhawks to 1/3 section.

I'd had to drive interstate to play against the don't be a dan list

_________________
I have 4 laptops in this room and cannot play a pixel pushing tabletop simulator on any of them.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thunderhawks
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:44 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 8:01 pm
Posts: 1456
Norto wrote:
don't be a dan


I’m delighted to see the true meaning of DBAD taking off. :-)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  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