Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 86 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Harakoni Warhawks - v1.5 (20131016)

 Post subject: Harakoni Warhawks - v1.5 (20131016)
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:26 am
Posts: 311
The Harakoni Warhawks are a heavy-infantry Drop Regiment, capable of capturing a hardened target and holding it until relieved. Although they've appeared several times in 40k works, information is relatively scarce. What we do know, however, seems to make them a prime candidate for an Epic army.

Design Principles
1: Although bearing some similarities to Spectrar Ghost's Cadians and Honda's Elysians, (the source of much inspiration), the Warhawks should have a distinctly different playstyle.
2: Similar training and close ties to Stormtroopers means they need to both include them, but not render them redundant.
3: Close ties to the Imperial Navy means extensive Air and Naval support.
4: The Core Company should be flexible enough to be tailored for multiple roles, and form the mainstay of the list.
5: Multiple deployment methods should be available to the Strike Companies.
6: Retain the formatting and referential nature of the NetEA Compendium.

Enjoy, and comments are welcome. :)

Changes for Version 1.5 (from v1.4.2)
Rules text simplified, and adjusted for the 2012 compendium format.
Sentinels armored up and moved to a Core company.
Demolition Specialists reduced in size, and vendetta option removed.
Support Sentinels given Indirect Fire.
Forward Observer slow fire removed, but BP reduced.
Lightning Attack Fighters brought in line with current convention.


Attachments:
Harakoni Warhawks v1.5.pdf [74.87 KiB]
Downloaded 921 times


Last edited by Signal on Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:08 pm, edited 8 times in total.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harakoni Warhawks - v1.0
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:21 pm
Posts: 1978
Location: Thompson, MB, Canada
Looks very interesting.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harakoni Warhawks - v1.0
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:03 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 8:16 pm
Posts: 4643
Location: Downers Grove, IL
Agreed. I'll look some more later, but I like what I see so far.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harakoni Warhawks - v1.0
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 9:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:47 am
Posts: 1434
Location: State College
looks interesting. first thing that jumped out at me was the Forward Observer - 100pts for an infantry stand that adds a 6BP barrage (even if slow firing) is waaaay cheap. I'd take one with 2 Co.s and stick 'em on my back line in cover.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harakoni Warhawks - v1.0
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:28 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 5678
Location: Australia
At work at present so unable to really concentrate on a detailed look however I did have sonme quick questions:

1. Grav Glider. What was the reason for making this expendable?
2. CAP garrison. This is an interesting rule. It is also quite good. Does it take the place of both garrison units overwatching or just one? Being as good as I think it is, I would expect that both garrison Overwatches are used up to place a formation on CAP. Just my thoughts at present

Like I stated I am a little distracted and limited on time but I do like the theme of the list and it is well presented in a basic and easy to read format.

Great work.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Chaos Squats


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harakoni Warhawks - v1.0
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:58 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 8:16 pm
Posts: 4643
Location: Downers Grove, IL
I assume the CAP garrison is exactly the same as the rule for the EUK Vanaheim. It replaces one per CAP, IIRC.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harakoni Warhawks - v1.0
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 12:24 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 9:51 am
Posts: 487
and the expendable grav glider is for when you take the formation upgrade. That way you can land and leave it behind and it wont impair you strike team :)

I really quite like the direction of this :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harakoni Warhawks - v1.0
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 2:27 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:26 am
Posts: 311
frogbear wrote:
1. Grav Glider. What was the reason for making this expendable?

KivArn is correct, the idea is that the formation can huddle around the glider for cover if they want, and they can go ahead and do what they need to do without worrying about accumulating blast markers.
frogbear wrote:
2. CAP garrison. This is an interesting rule. It is also quite good. Does it take the place of both garrison units overwatching or just one? Being as good as I think it is, I would expect that both garrison Overwatches are used up to place a formation on CAP.

Spectrar Ghost is correct here, it's a word-for-word lift of the Vanaheim special rule.

mattthemuppet wrote:
first thing that jumped out at me was the Forward Observer - 100pts for an infantry stand that adds a 6BP barrage (even if slow firing) is waaaay cheap. I'd take one with 2 Co.s and stick 'em on my back line in cover.

Yeah, this is one that I'm still a little bit iffy on. My rationale for not making it more expensive is: a) it's the longest range thing there, which means it's suppressed if there's even one blast marker. b) Lose that one stand, and it's gone. c) It isn't indirect fire, meaning it has to have direct line of sight (which means they can shoot back at you.)

Thanks for the positive comments, guys. Any thoughts on the independent Grav-glider? I wanted a way to recover/redeliver formations, and I figured reusing the Gravglider was the easiest (so I didn't need a new profile.) Fluffwise, I figure that contragrav + thrusters could easily enable the glider to become airborne again.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harakoni Warhawks - v1.0
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 3:02 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 6:12 am
Posts: 1331
Location: Australia
i am super-keen on these. i've been looking for a suitable 'drop company' army for some time now.

my first thoughts:
can we have thunderbolts as an option? lightnings are pretty much 'better' but i like thunderbolts much more
i floated an idea in the elysian thread about a marauder or onero aircraft transport option, one that can drop troops without planetfall and without landing, and then perhaps reverts to 'bomber' status afterwards. any possibility of that getting a look in?
it seems like the '4 stormtroopers' option is way better a choice for the core formation than the 2 regular troops upgrade. especially as the '2 stormtroopers' upgrade costs the same (so either the regular troops are as good as stormtroopers, or one is a better choice than the other)

and finally, could you include all unit stats in the summary? i really hate having to flick through the compendium to find stats for stuff, especially in lists like this one which take from multiple areas.

i will seriously consider giving this a playtest on thursday (although i really should be working on my own list at this point, it's nearly ready for an update, but i need to run a few more tests first)

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harakoni Warhawks - v1.0
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 3:54 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:26 am
Posts: 311
Quote:
can we have thunderbolts as an option? lightnings are pretty much 'better' but i like thunderbolts much more

I'm not entirely sold on the Lightning variants, but I was thinking aircraft specialization might cater well to the list. Thunderbolts would be easy to include instead though. They are definitely better than Lightning Interceptors (except for shorter range), although the Strike variant is definitely better at ground attack. Maybe Thunderbolts and Strikes as the two options?
Quote:
i floated an idea in the elysian thread about a marauder or onero aircraft transport option, one that can drop troops without planetfall and without landing, and then perhaps reverts to 'bomber' status afterwards. any possibility of that getting a look in?

I liked this idea when you proposed it, and I still do. My main concern is that it would require a (potentially confusing) special rule, and I'm not entirely certain it's necessary. Do you feel it would add anything that the grav-glider doesn't?
Quote:
it seems like the '4 stormtroopers' option is way better a choice for the core formation than the 2 regular troops upgrade. especially as the '2 stormtroopers' upgrade costs the same (so either the regular troops are as good as stormtroopers, or one is a better choice than the other)[/]
You are definitely correct that the Stormtroopers are pretty much better. The main benefit for the regular Warhawk upgrade is that it allows you to take the Fire Support team and still fit into a GravGlider.
Quote:
could you include all unit stats in the summary?

I'll probably keep just the new units at the bottom of that sheet, but then build together a complete summary sheet as the second page of the PDF. :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harakoni Warhawks - v1.0
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 4:20 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 6:12 am
Posts: 1331
Location: Australia
Signal wrote:
I'm not entirely sold on the Lightning variants, but I was thinking aircraft specialization might cater well to the list. Thunderbolts would be easy to include instead though. They are definitely better than Lightning Interceptors (except for shorter range), although the Strike variant is definitely better at ground attack. Maybe Thunderbolts and Strikes as the two options?


i think it wouldnt hurt the list to have all 3 options available. the range on the interceptor is a big drawcard in its own way, so it sorta makes sense to have the "interceptor" "ground attack" and "generalist" options. people will probably take the thunderbolts more than the specialists if they're not sure what they're going to be facing, but either of the variants might make it in. plus, more navy options help cement it into a "air operations" army list

Quote:
I liked this idea when you proposed it, and I still do. My main concern is that it would require a (potentially confusing) special rule, and I'm not entirely certain it's necessary. Do you feel it would add anything that the grav-glider doesn't?


i must admit that i read the absence of "AC" in the grav gliders profile as a "this doesnt have the normal flying option, merely planetfall" which if it's not true, then no, i dont suppose it does add a whole lot to the list.
however, to me atleast, what it does do is two things.
firstly, it adds versatility. if you can use it as a transport plane on one turn, and a bomber on the others, then it puts much less pressure on the allied contingent (which is likely to be chockers already, with all the aircraft options in the list, taking grav gliders and marauders doesnt leave much room for spacecraft and interception aircraft to play (although this is largly mitigated by including a glider in the formation i guess)
and secondly, it adds more of the right flavour, the grav glider feels like a "we land, troops get out, they abandon me" which is ok, but feels like a "drop pod" rather than an aircraft insertion. also, i do not like the name 'grav glider' so sticking with the established marauder or onero craft would be better in my mind (though i would say, based on some of what i remember from Double Eagle, the oneros where very very big, so they'd probably be the spaceship equivalent)

and i dont think a "this aircraft can act as a transport for one formation of up to X units. on the turn that it does so, it may not fire its bombs, however, it cannot land or pick up troops. instead, the transported formation may disembark as though they possessed the 'jump pack' special rule. on the turn that it acts as a transport, it may participate in air assaults as needed, but does not become a ground vehicle for the duration of the turn, and is still destroyed if the assault is lost" is really any more complicated than the drop pod rule marines have, and if it replaced grav gliders entirely, then it would also replace the 'expendable' rule.

mostly i just like the image as presented in Double Eagle, where the bombers fly in low over the city, and instead of bombs, a mass of blood pact infantry descend and start beating up on stuff

Quote:
You are definitely correct that the Stormtroopers are pretty much better. The main benefit for the regular Warhawk upgrade is that it allows you to take the Fire Support team and still fit into a GravGlider.
could you include all unit stats in the summary?


fair enough, i suppose thats a value in and of itself, but perhaps the fire support option should be reduced to compensate? its a slippery slope though, since not everyone is going to be in gliders...

Quote:
I'll probably keep just the new units at the bottom of that sheet, but then build together a complete summary sheet as the second page of the PDF. :)


that cool, i only really need the summary sheet anyway, just a bit of a bug-bear from playtesting other lists (particularly annoying was last game, which was minervans vs iron warriors, so both lists required jumping back to the compendium, but in different areas)

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harakoni Warhawks - v1.0
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:22 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:26 am
Posts: 311
Sure, all 3 aircraft options sounds good for now. If one turns out to be unnecessary, then that's fine.

Yeah, I forgot it should be AC/WE; consider it altered :P as to your other points:

1: Versatility) It is true that taking independent gliders puts a strain on the allies section. My intention was that most formations which wanted to deploy via aircraft would take them as in-formation craft, which would exempt them from allies status. The independent gravgliders were to serve two purposes: First, to act as transports for those units which don't have access to them organically (namely Sentinels and Stormtroopers) and Second, to allow for extraction (which definitely requires a decent price tag). I think a certain amount of trade-off between 'utility' air and 'offense' air is necessary. Pricing something which is actually effective at both roles would be rather difficult, especially if it was good enough to act as competition with the Marauders and GravGliders.

2: Flavour) This is something I'm definitely keen on keeping at the forefront. If it helps, the intent was that the GravGliders were aircraft first, and planetstrike capable second. I'm sorta playing with the idea of removing self-planetstrike from them, but it seems like a good payoff between a "safe but preselected" drop versus "dangerous but dynamic" drop. Could you elaborate a bit on what you see as the difference between the gliders and an aircraft insertion? :) I knew there was a big transport, but I couldn't remember it. Thanks for the reminder, the "High-Altitude Drop" has been renamed the "Onero overflight." The pin-point attack will remain, as it still represents the missiles launched by escorting fighter craft.

A note on the name: I'm not overly fond of the name "grav-glider" myself, but it is included in one of the few canon references to the Warhawks. (pg 61, Imperial Guard Codex, 2003) Although the name could possibly refer to a smaller one-man craft, I figured it was decent to at least include it. I am tempted to change it to "Assault Glider," though.

Quote:
mostly i just like the image as presented in Double Eagle, where the bombers fly in low over the city, and instead of bombs, a mass of blood pact infantry descend and start beating up on stuff

Oh totally, that's a great scene. As is the drop in "The Guns of Tanith," although that's a much more light-infantry operation (and uses Marauders) That's the impression that the GravChutes are supposed to represent; the Overflight comes in, and formations basically start dropping from the sky. Mostly what pushes me away from the Marauder-variant is that bombers (or bulk transports) don't have the capability to participate in an Air-Assault mission; that's the purview of the helicopter (Valkyrie), glider (grav-glider), and the heavy landing craft. (Thunderhawks/Landas) I also know the "Expendable" rule is something people are already comfortable with from other lists (the description is listed from the Grot, and also applies to Elysian Cyclops and who knows what else) whereas the Marauder-transport would be highly specific to the Warhawks. :) I can tell you this, however: once we get some playtesting done of the other options, we can definitely reconsider a versatile airdrop/bomber craft. Mostly I'm just worried about redundancy (which is the reason I restrained from adding a drop-pod analogue, despite it being cool.)

Quote:
fair enough, i suppose thats a value in and of itself, but perhaps the fire support option should be reduced to compensate? its a slippery slope though, since not everyone is going to be in gliders...

You do make a good point though, and I think the price baseline should really be based around the GravChute deployment. Theoretically that's the "standard" for deployment, with Air Cavalry and Gliderborne troops being auxilaries intended to cover the gaps which will inevitably arise in a heavily-planetstriking army.


New subjects:
Salamander Scouts: seems vaguely appropriate to have advance-reconnaissance elements on the board, but would it remove the role of the Sentinels? I sort of want the Sentinels to be speed 25, but I think that change is probably unnecessary.

Independent Glider: Should this be removed and replaced with a truly Superheavy Guard Air-transport? I keep waffling back and forth between "rapid-attack shock troops," and a big-ass Imperial Dropship. It would entail another special unit, however. I would imagine it as something similar to the Cadian Imperial Bastion, only it flies ;)

Hard-hitters: The list currently does not have access to any Macroweapon attacks, (besides spacecraft) much less Titan Killers. While this is in-theme to a certain extent, it also presents a pretty glaring gap in capability. Facing a Knightworld, AMTL, or Minervan list would be very, very difficult. Attempting to make up the deficiency through weight of numbers isn't going to be particularly effective either. In that light, what would be the most suitable method by which to make up the deficiency?
1) Don't need it, the lack of MW/TK is flavorful and not much of a hinderence;
2) Aircraft-delivered tankbuster, precision orbital strike, or similar other Naval assistance;
3) Melta/Multimelta upgrade, adding 15cm: MW5+ and FF MW capability
4) Demolition Charges, adding a CC: EA(+1) MW capability
5) Some sort of totally nasty Plasma charge, adding CC: EA(+1) MWTK, One Shot
6) Specialized demolitions team, 15cm: MW6+ TK, Slow Firing
I'm not sure what I think is the best option, but I'm currently leaning towards any of the even-numbered ones.

Ground-based AA: Is it necessary? It sure would be useful, but I'm not sure if it fits. I'd be leaning towards a single 30cm 5+ or 6+ AA shot maximum, allowing limited anti-air cover via either missile teams or possibly Interdiction Tarantula Sentries. The former would be an upgrade, the latter probably a 5-unit support formation with GravChutes.

Working on adding changes and the summary sheet, v1.1 should be up before too long.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harakoni Warhawks - v1.0
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:32 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 6:12 am
Posts: 1331
Location: Australia
Signal wrote:
1: Versatility) It is true that taking independent gliders puts a strain on the allies section. My intention was that most formations which wanted to deploy via aircraft would take them as in-formation craft, which would exempt them from allies status. The independent gravgliders were to serve two purposes: First, to act as transports for those units which don't have access to them organically (namely Sentinels and Stormtroopers) and Second, to allow for extraction (which definitely requires a decent price tag). I think a certain amount of trade-off between 'utility' air and 'offense' air is necessary. Pricing something which is actually effective at both roles would be rather difficult, especially if it was good enough to act as competition with the Marauders and GravGliders.


yeah. my idea with "drop off only" marauders was that it would provide a better pricing system than a true 'can do both' thing. being upable to extract forces (for which you'd need dedicated transport craft to do that anyway) should provide a decent price-break, and the fact that it cant bomb and transport in the same turn would help keep the price down a ways. i quite like the feeling of a wave of aircraft dropping in troops, then returning to base to hastily be refitted with bombs to fly back out and support the troops (perhaps enforce an extra turn of stand down, to inflict the "alone without support" claustrophiba that air insertions are supposed to convey. that would also help with a "turn 1 everyone shows up" strategy, because if you wait till turn 2, you mightnt get a bombing run off at all)

Quote:
2: Flavour) This is something I'm definitely keen on keeping at the forefront. If it helps, the intent was that the GravGliders were aircraft first, and planetstrike capable second. I'm sorta playing with the idea of removing self-planetstrike from them, but it seems like a good payoff between a "safe but preselected" drop versus "dangerous but dynamic" drop. Could you elaborate a bit on what you see as the difference between the gliders and an aircraft insertion? :) I knew there was a big transport, but I couldn't remember it. Thanks for the reminder, the "High-Altitude Drop" has been renamed the "Onero overflight." The pin-point attack will remain, as it still represents the missiles launched by escorting fighter craft.


well, its less that i see a difference between aircraft and glider insertions, but rather the difference between planetfall and aircraft. planetfall really seems like a great big "drops like a rock" thing, especially if they then leave the plane behind. plus, because they're getting out of the plane at ground level, it doesnt really feel like a parachute drop, ya know.


Quote:
A note on the name: I'm not overly fond of the name "grav-glider" myself, but it is included in one of the few canon references to the Warhawks. (pg 61, Imperial Guard Codex, 2003) Although the name could possibly refer to a smaller one-man craft, I figured it was decent to at least include it. I am tempted to change it to "Assault Glider," though.


yeah, i always thought they where more likely to be a personal insertion device (much more akin to the gravchutes used in operation larisel) but yeah, a renaming might be nice, if only cause its really quite a awful name. keeping it for the fluff references is good reasoning, but i am admittedly seeing this more as a Guns Of Tanith/Phantine force (primarily because its more recent, and i have a vested interest in an ongoing epicification of the sabbat worlds crusade)

Quote:
Oh totally, that's a great scene. As is the drop in "The Guns of Tanith," although that's a much more light-infantry operation (and uses Marauders) That's the impression that the GravChutes are supposed to represent; the Overflight comes in, and formations basically start dropping from the sky. Mostly what pushes me away from the Marauder-variant is that bombers (or bulk transports) don't have the capability to participate in an Air-Assault mission; that's the purview of the helicopter (Valkyrie), glider (grav-glider), and the heavy landing craft. (Thunderhawks/Landas) I also know the "Expendable" rule is something people are already comfortable with from other lists (the description is listed from the Grot, and also applies to Elysian Cyclops and who knows what else) whereas the Marauder-transport would be highly specific to the Warhawks. :) I can tell you this, however: once we get some playtesting done of the other options, we can definitely reconsider a versatile airdrop/bomber craft. Mostly I'm just worried about redundancy (which is the reason I restrained from adding a drop-pod analogue, despite it being cool.)


i'm quite happy to try this stuff out, i just like the idea of being able to use both from a single aircraft (as mentioned, i was seriously considering putting it into the bloody hand list, which would also serve to fulfil the ambush option i've been toying with, but didnt want to bloat out too much into one list) though i do think the list could do with a bulk lander style option for large scale insertions. actually, i quite like that as an idea, marauders/gliders for 'drop off' but for extraction, you need to call in the valks, or wait for the big ship to come get you.

Quote:
New subjects:
Salamander Scouts: seems vaguely appropriate to have advance-reconnaissance elements on the board, but would it remove the role of the Sentinels? I sort of want the Sentinels to be speed 25, but I think that change is probably unnecessary.


i have never really seen salamanders as a proper 'recon' unit in the sense that we think of a sneaky force. its more a "outrider" unit for large armoured columns. i dont think they'd serve a purpose here. if you want a faster scouting unit, i'd take a look at the outriders i have in my bloody hand, they're basically halfway between a salamander and a sentinel. but honestly, i'd consider that the best option for people 'calling in' the airstrikes would be small formations of camoed troops. i'd look seriously at eldar pathfinders. small formations of teleporting snipers. drop scout, and have their 'teleport' represent being in place and jumping out, ala with lictors) nasty stuff. (like i said earlier, i've been toying with an ambush unit for the bloody hand, but it'd probably work better here)

Quote:
Independent Glider: Should this be removed and replaced with a truly Superheavy Guard Air-transport? I keep waffling back and forth between "rapid-attack shock troops," and a big-ass Imperial Dropship. It would entail another special unit, however. I would imagine it as something similar to the Cadian Imperial Bastion, only it flies ;)


maybe not replaced, but a lander option seems like a good idea, see above. maybe It, instead of the spaceship, should have the slow and steady rule. the forward elements hit hard, clears a space for the big lander, which unloads its larger formations and mops up. might only be viable for larger battles though. might also force a playstyle schism, either "first turn engagement" or a "everything shows up on third turn for a blitz grab" ala marines...

Quote:
Hard-hitters: The list currently does not have access to any Macroweapon attacks, (besides spacecraft) much less Titan Killers. While this is in-theme to a certain extent, it also presents a pretty glaring gap in capability. Facing a Knightworld, AMTL, or Minervan list would be very, very difficult. Attempting to make up the deficiency through weight of numbers isn't going to be particularly effective either. In that light, what would be the most suitable method by which to make up the deficiency?
1) Don't need it, the lack of MW/TK is flavorful and not much of a hinderence;
2) Aircraft-delivered tankbuster, precision orbital strike, or similar other Naval assistance;
3) Melta/Multimelta upgrade, adding 15cm: MW5+ and FF MW capability
4) Demolition Charges, adding a CC: EA(+1) MW capability
5) Some sort of totally nasty Plasma charge, adding CC: EA(+1) MWTK, One Shot
6) Specialized demolitions team, 15cm: MW6+ TK, Slow Firing
I'm not sure what I think is the best option, but I'm currently leaning towards any of the even-numbered ones.


1) is out. that was my biggest concern aswell, although i was operating under the belief that we where using MM drop sentinels, which rather covers that weakness to an extent
2) here is a crazy thought. given that the 'spacecraft' options represent heavy aircraft overflight, how about you allow more than 1 in the list. (still no more than 1 a turn of course. or alternately, allow mutliple aircraft to be attached to the one overflight, so as to add pinpoint attacks. surely the big aircraft could mount deathstrikes or some TK warhead) with a low strategy rating, you're likely to get booted off one of the turns by the enemy, so you're not likely to be able to completely block their spacecraft
3) i'd rather see them on sentinels (and allow a sentinel upgrade) but yeah, that could work
4) give that to the commanders atleast, could work. i am looking at the cost for the basic unit and thinking "they could do with a little something extra" so thayt would probably cover it nicely
5) too much 1shot weapons already, best to leave that one alone
6) specialist engineers units could be a go. kinda like the kriegs have. alternately, have the master of the ordinance style observer character have a lance attack (either as an 'or' option, or as a replacement for the bassies, rely on the marauders to do the bombing)

Quote:
Ground-based AA: Is it necessary? It sure would be useful, but I'm not sure if it fits. I'd be leaning towards a single 30cm 5+ or 6+ AA shot maximum, allowing limited anti-air cover via either missile teams or possibly Interdiction Tarantula Sentries. The former would be an upgrade, the latter probably a 5-unit support formation with GravChutes.


if you leave the interception in, and the V-CAP rules, i dont think groundbased AA is really needed, but again, take a look at the bloody hand list over in the chaos section, i included rules for the sabre platform. they're rather drastically underpowered compared to a hydra formation, but they do ok...

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harakoni Warhawks - v1.0
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:50 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:26 am
Posts: 311
Jaggedtoothgrin wrote:
"drop off only" marauders

I'm thinking this might actually be an okay replacement for the independent grav-glider, at least until I figure out what sort of recovery craft might be available. Bumping up the Bomber's price to 175 should cover the extra utility for now.

Quote:
wplanetfall and aircraft.

I've been kicking stuff around for a bit, and I'm actually going to pull out the self-planetfall from the gliders. This makes them aircraft-only deployment, which is appropriate for their relative inexpense. The Valkyries might be an appropriate unit for self-planetfall though, which would let them drop out of sync with the Onero, to represent them timing their approach differently. I am going to shift that ability to them, which creates a triple-threat of delivery options: Airborne gliders, self-planetfalling Valkyries, and planetfalling GravChutes from the Onero.

Quote:
renaming

I'm going to hold onto the name for now, mainly 'cause it's one of the few tenuous bits of information we have. I'm also going to be keeping this as a much more Heavy-Infantry force, (not the SpecOps from Op. Larisel) although there's definitely a capability for them to function similarly.

Quote:
bulk lander option

What's currently occupying my thoughts is whether extraction would actually take place within the confines of an Epic game. I don't want a heavy dropship/recovery craft to steal the spotlight from the insertion elements, so I'm going to leave it out for now.

Quote:
I have never really seen salamanders as a proper 'recon' unit

Keep in mind that reconnaissance takes many forms. While covert operatives is one avenue, Salamanders perfectly fulfill the role of a "force in contact," being able to remain close enough to enemy units to ensure constant and mobile information flow. It's in that role that I was thinking of having them deployed in this list, as the mobile element which has occasionally skirmished with enemy elements, and has cleared the final intel resulting in the drop. Your 'outriders,' are essentially just high-speed Sentinels, which is essentially the other option I've been considering. For now I'm going to leave the Sentinels at 20cm speed simply for consistency, but if it turns out that the added mobility is necessary, we'll come back and reconsider. I think the Valkyrie-borne companies might be able to fill that role.

Quote:
lander option

Like I said above, I think I'm going to hold off on a big lander for now, so as not to dilute the theme.

Quote:
Sabre AA

Sabre's seem much more of an emplacement than I'm thinking is appropriate, but V-Cap will probably cover most concerns. Probably going to hold off unless it seems necessary.

Quote:
Quote:
Hard-hitters: The list currently does not have access to any Macroweapon attacks, (besides spacecraft) much less Titan Killers. While this is in-theme to a certain extent, it also presents a pretty glaring gap in capability. Facing a Knightworld, AMTL, or Minervan list would be very, very difficult. Attempting to make up the deficiency through weight of numbers isn't going to be particularly effective either. In that light, what would be the most suitable method by which to make up the deficiency?
1) Don't need it, the lack of MW/TK is flavorful and not much of a hinderence;
2) Aircraft-delivered tankbuster, precision orbital strike, or similar other Naval assistance;
3) Melta/Multimelta upgrade, adding 15cm: MW5+ and FF MW capability
4) Demolition Charges, adding a CC: EA(+1) MW capability
5) Some sort of totally nasty Plasma charge, adding CC: EA(+1) MWTK, One Shot
6) Specialized demolitions team, 15cm: MW6+ TK, Slow Firing
I'm not sure what I think is the best option, but I'm currently leaning towards any of the even-numbered ones.

1) is out. that was my biggest concern aswell, although i was operating under the belief that we where using MM drop sentinels, which rather covers that weakness to an extent
2) here is a crazy thought. given that the 'spacecraft' options represent heavy aircraft overflight, how about you allow more than 1 in the list. (still no more than 1 a turn of course. or alternately, allow mutliple aircraft to be attached to the one overflight, so as to add pinpoint attacks. surely the big aircraft could mount deathstrikes or some TK warhead) with a low strategy rating, you're likely to get booted off one of the turns by the enemy, so you're not likely to be able to completely block their spacecraft
3) i'd rather see them on sentinels (and allow a sentinel upgrade) but yeah, that could work
4) give that to the commanders atleast, could work. i am looking at the cost for the basic unit and thinking "they could do with a little something extra" so thayt would probably cover it nicely
5) too much 1shot weapons already, best to leave that one alone
6) specialist engineers units could be a go. kinda like the kriegs have. alternately, have the master of the ordinance style observer character have a lance attack (either as an 'or' option, or as a replacement for the bassies, rely on the marauders to do the bombing)


1) Yeah, not using the Multimelta Drop Sentinels. They're much more of a 'knife-fighter' than the role filled by the reconnaissance squadrons.
2) I was talking about multiple spacecraft with a friend the other day, but it brings up some complications. While scenarios can definitely include multiple spacecraft, I'm not going to mess with those rules in the core list. Upgrading the Oneros escorts with more potent weapons is definitely a great thought, but it would essentially invalidate the actual Spacecraft.
3) I'm going to steer away from Multimelta Sentinels for a number of reasons, but mostly because they don't fit into the Recon companies, and I don't want Sentinel upgrades to the Strike companies.
4) I'd actually forgotten that IG Supreme Commanders get Power Weapons, so that does provide 0-1 access to MW. Could either extend that to regular commanders as well. Alternately, the core formation could become more like the Black Legion layout, with 6 Warhawks and a Character, with the character having a MW capability and Commander.
5) Yeah, that was my thinking. I kinda hate One-Shot stuff.
6) I don't want to give the Forward Observer communications with the orbiting spacecraft, mostly because it does weird things with pin-point weaponry, their relative pricing, and the War-Engine restriction. Part of the intent is to have something which is effective against heavily reinforce-armor vehicle lists, not all of which are War Engine based. On the other hand, it could create a more solid reason to bring along a proper Spacecraft.


EDIT: V1.1 uploaded


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Harakoni Warhawks - v1.0
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:53 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 6:12 am
Posts: 1331
Location: Australia
Signal wrote:
Keep in mind that reconnaissance takes many forms. While covert operatives is one avenue, Salamanders perfectly fulfill the role of a "force in contact," being able to remain close enough to enemy units to ensure constant and mobile information flow. It's in that role that I was thinking of having them deployed in this list, as the mobile element which has occasionally skirmished with enemy elements, and has cleared the final intel resulting in the drop. Your 'outriders,' are essentially just high-speed Sentinels, which is essentially the other option I've been considering. For now I'm going to leave the Sentinels at 20cm speed simply for consistency, but if it turns out that the added mobility is necessary, we'll come back and reconsider. I think the Valkyrie-borne companies might be able to fill that role.


yeah, my problem is that in this instance, how did the salamanders get there? i'd have thought the scouts would need to be as mobile as the core army, if not moreso, and while salamanders are crazy-fast, i just dont get that feel for them, they're not really light enough to be air-dropped. i imagine valk squadrons could be reconny enough, but i do like the idea of a small lightly armoured scout force calling in the big guns. (and i'm totally behind this being a heavy infantry drop army, thats actually what i'm hoping for, as its on my cards for a 40k army, and i actually have been buying up the models to make one using the vannaheim list, but i do like the idea of a few special forces types skulking about, finding a vulnerable point in the enemy line, and then bam, incoming heavily armoured stormtrooper types)

Quote:
Sabre's seem much more of an emplacement than I'm thinking is appropriate, but V-Cap will probably cover most concerns. Probably going to hold off unless it seems necessary.


i recon V-CAP will cover it, but a gravchuting sabre formation could help if needed

Quote:
1) Yeah, not using the Multimelta Drop Sentinels. They're much more of a 'knife-fighter' than the role filled by the reconnaissance squadrons.
2) I was talking about multiple spacecraft with a friend the other day, but it brings up some complications. While scenarios can definitely include multiple spacecraft, I'm not going to mess with those rules in the core list. Upgrading the Oneros escorts with more potent weapons is definitely a great thought, but it would essentially invalidate the actual Spacecraft.
3) I'm going to steer away from Multimelta Sentinels for a number of reasons, but mostly because they don't fit into the Recon companies, and I don't want Sentinel upgrades to the Strike companies.
4) I'd actually forgotten that IG Supreme Commanders get Power Weapons, so that does provide 0-1 access to MW. Could either extend that to regular commanders as well. Alternately, the core formation could become more like the Black Legion layout, with 6 Warhawks and a Character, with the character having a MW capability and Commander.
5) Yeah, that was my thinking. I kinda hate One-Shot stuff.
6) I don't want to give the Forward Observer communications with the orbiting spacecraft, mostly because it does weird things with pin-point weaponry, their relative pricing, and the War-Engine restriction. Part of the intent is to have something which is effective against heavily reinforce-armor vehicle lists, not all of which are War Engine based. On the other hand, it could create a more solid reason to bring along a proper Spacecraft.


1) thats a bit disappointing. i do think the squadrons with MW would work well. they'd basically be slower but drop-able landspeeder squadrons with walker instead of skimmer. they'd take on a dedicated AT role (which is otherwise limited to vultures with oneshot weapons, or strike fighters.
i agree that as a normal sentinels role goes, multimeltas arent the right tool for the job, but in an airborn army, i think they really are. it also rather solidly goes towards finding a useful niche for a formation whose inclusion will otherise pretty much entirely be taken to allow access to the support sentinels added firepower

2) i think right now the problem is this. the list really kinda wants atleast 2 of the 3 spacecraft at all times. without slow and steady, the emperor might be worth the 300 points, cause thats a great big bang. the lunar's pinpoints may be really useful, or maybe not (is it the 1 pinpoint 3BP one, or the 2 pinpoint one btw?) but against anything but a titan army, i'd rather take the big ship instead. and against the titan, even 2 pinpoint attacks isnt gonna do a whole lot. and obviously as the overflight is the transport option, you kinda want that.
however, as it stands, i dont see much reason to be able to take the overflight instead of the emperor. it arrives on turn1 and bombs the hell out of the enemy deployment zone, use valks and gliders to bring all the troops on. i just dont see the onero ever leaving the airfield if its taking away the only real MW option the army has. now i admit that combining them into one super-spaceship may cause trouble, but it does stop them treading on each others toes, because it would become the only option... right now, the spaceships are rather too thoroughly stepping on the oneros toes.

3) covered it in 1, but i really think the list needs MW sentinels as its antitank vehicle. you could even include the option to upgrade one to a support sentinel (or to upgrade them all to regular multilaser sentinels) to keep the landspeeder parallels going.

4) i really dont think that 1 mw CC hit per engagement (ok 2, with the commissar) is going to be enough to deal with a tank company. especially since more than ever, the hawks are going to want to keep their characters alive and thus not in CC with the enemy

5) i dont hate 1 shot, but it certainly doesnt need to be on infantry.

6) i didnt mean a lance as in a lance battery pinpoint attack, i meant lance as in a lance (ignores RA) weapon (or even just a TK shot of some sort) if the basalisks can be offboard, why not the deathstrikes?
hell, why not include a 0-1 infantryman with the laser guidance for unlimited range deathstrikes. he'd be more vulnerable to being supressed, killed, and would only be able to shoot at 1 target, and you can be damn sure he'll get tested XD


new page looks good, though the summary sheet is still missing the spacecraft (hence the question as to which lunar it is, the normal one or the admech one)

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 86 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  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