Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Tallarn Desert Regiment
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=27199
Page 7 of 8

Author:  jimmyzimms [ Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tallarn Desert Regiment

been that way forever in EUK

Author:  Apocolocyntosis [ Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tallarn Desert Regiment

thoughts on heaviness:

A first step would be moving conquerors to core. But, I recon the conq formation is pretty good though, think it needs some bat reps tested both ways.

if it moved to core, could add a more regular russ formation (6 strong) to support formation. To keep these heavy-but-light we could try making sponsonless russ variants?

LR destroyers could be added, these have a nice ambush role (though few places to hide in desert!) and get another tough AV in, if needed/wanted.

and Moo, or, like, whatever:
Image

Author:  jimmyzimms [ Fri Jan 15, 2016 5:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tallarn Desert Regiment

Apocolocyntosis wrote:
though few places to hide in desert!

The IDF would like to have a few words about that. :tut

Author:  splash [ Fri Jan 15, 2016 5:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tallarn Desert Regiment

No, just use Conquerors. They fit well enough, and adding more "heavy" tanks would just give us another flavor of Steel Legion. This is supposed to be different enough from other lists as to make it worth the effort to collect and play. But perhaps there could be tank upgrades to Conquerors. Not to replace the entire formation with slower heavy tanks, but to sprinkle in a bit of variety.

I still like Salamander scouts. They seem to fit well.

Author:  Doomkitten [ Sat Jan 16, 2016 8:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tallarn Desert Regiment

Apocolocyntosis wrote:
LR destroyers could be added, these have a nice ambush role (though few places to hide in desert!) and get another tough AV in, if needed/wanted.


Some sort of quirky deployment rules that don't quite benefit the destroyers might be fun, possibly linked to garrisoning?

Apocolocyntosis wrote:
thoughts on heaviness:

A first step would be moving conquerors to core. But, I recon the conq formation is pretty good though, think it needs some bat reps tested both ways.

if it moved to core, could add a more regular russ formation (6 strong) to support formation. To keep these heavy-but-light we could try making sponsonless russ variants?


The conquerers certainly are a good formation, no arguments there whatsoever. And I completely agree with Jimmy's earlier comment about Ulani being a good fit for 'traditional' forces. I just feel that when a unit is so traditionally experienced with certain forces, they'll try and use said forces in as many roles as they can. I find that making a light raider force from (possibly modified) heavier assets, just like the conquerers are, gives more of a flavour that 'rings my bell', for want of a better description. Plus, I think the challenge of making a light force from non-traditionally-light assets would be more fun than just squeezing in buggies and infantry all over the place.


As an aside - no thoughts for specialist rough riders with demo packs?

Author:  wargame_insomniac [ Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tallarn Desert Regiment

Where is the latest PDF of this armylist? Is it the one in opening post?
I take it that there's been no real movement on this list in the last year?

Cheers

James

Author:  jimmyzimms [ Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tallarn Desert Regiment

It's not really a "list" at this time. More of a concept that Splash and I kicked around and then redacted with Apoc and myself to the "current" state. I'll post it here for convenience and of course the OP copy.

Attachments:
Tallarn Desert Raiders.pdf [436.09 KiB]
Downloaded 97 times

Author:  wargame_insomniac [ Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tallarn Desert Regiment

Thanks Jimmyzimms

Author:  splash [ Sun Jan 08, 2017 9:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tallarn Desert Regiment

wargame_insomniac wrote:
Thanks Jimmyzimms


Yeah thanks Jimzim.

Author:  Pencanenas [ Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tallarn Desert Regiment

Hi! New in TC and very interested in NetEA Tallarn.

I'm relatively noob in NetEA but i have some questions about this list.

1. There is a Hellhound Company Upgrade but I don't see what company can take it. :tut
2. Marauder Destroyers: I think 375 :o is too much for them, isn't it? Especially in comparison with Marauder Bomber from other lists (250). And why Armour 5+ instead of 4+?
3. Don't you think Mukaali Riders should be at least as powerfull offensively speaking as Rough Riders? Why don't they have the Extra Attack? :wah
4. Why don't we have Warhounds???? :'( :'( :'( :'(
5. Griffons: Support Formation 6 Griffons 250 pts. Company Upgrade 3 Griffons 50 pts. it doesn't seem very balanced. I think Griffons are bad and 250 pts is too much cost, isn't it?

May be I don't see some things and I've not tested very much yet, but these are some things that I see a bit striking.

Anyway, thank you a lot for all the work and I'm sorry for the mistakes but I'm not English speaker.

Author:  Primorko [ Tue Apr 23, 2019 1:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tallarn Desert Regiment

Pencanenas wrote:
Hi! New in TC and very interested in NetEA Tallarn.

I'm relatively noob in NetEA but i have some questions about this list.

1. There is a Hellhound Company Upgrade but I don't see what company can take it. :tut
2. Marauder Destroyers: I think 375 :o is too much for them, isn't it? Especially in comparison with Marauder Bomber from other lists (250). And why Armour 5+ instead of 4+?
3. Don't you think Mukaali Riders should be at least as powerfull offensively speaking as Rough Riders? Why don't they have the Extra Attack? :wah
4. Why don't we have Warhounds???? :'( :'( :'( :'(
5. Griffons: Support Formation 6 Griffons 250 pts. Company Upgrade 3 Griffons 50 pts. it doesn't seem very balanced. I think Griffons are bad and 250 pts is too much cost, isn't it?

May be I don't see some things and I've not tested very much yet, but these are some things that I see a bit striking.

Anyway, thank you a lot for all the work and I'm sorry for the mistakes but I'm not English speaker.


1. Looks like an errata
2.no idea, but if it was for me every vehicle in the army would have -1 to armour but more speed.
3.They have rear armour, dunno, they look cool.
4.tallan is supposed to be conformed of light vehicles and infantry being fast and stealthy, as you have the especial rules. I don't see Titans fluff based.
5.yeap it doesn't for me, maybe it not so tactical to have them as a support for your companies.

Author:  Pencanenas [ Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tallarn Desert Regiment

Thank you, Primorko, for you answer.

[...]
3. They look cool, but do almost nothing in cc. The questions is, why don't they have that EA that indeed do have the Rough Riders which are almost the same troop? No scout, ok. Less movement, ok. But worse fighters? Why?
[...]

Other things:

6. Mukaali Support: 25 pts to REPLACE one Mukaali. Support has TT6+ and still CC 4+. May be it should be switched.
7. Sentinels: No explorer sentinels?
8. Rough Riders: Why not?

Author:  jimmyzimms [ Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tallarn Desert Regiment

Pencanenas wrote:
Hi! New in TC and very interested in NetEA Tallarn.

Hi!
Image

Pencanenas wrote:
I'm relatively noob in NetEA but i have some questions about this list.

As I've posted above. This is less an actual list vs a concept to build a list that Apoc, Splash, and myself have kicked around to engage conversation around. Regardless happy to discuss :)

Quote:
1. There is a Hellhound Company Upgrade but I don't see what company can take it.

yeah typo. All the Tallarn Coy section are supposed to have that available. Just consider them all to have [hellhound] in the upgrades.

Quote:
2. Marauder Destroyers: I think 375 :o is too much for them, isn't it? Especially in comparison with Marauder Bomber from other lists (250). And why Armour 5+ instead of 4+?

Pretty sure we just stuck the existing Destroyer formation from other lists here. We've taken the existing NetEA stats.

Quote:
3. Don't you think Mukaali Riders should be at least as powerfull offensively speaking as Rough Riders? Why don't they have the Extra Attack?
Because they've got TRA and 3+ armour instead. They're more like deathriders on steroids than rough riders. As a design guideline units and lists generally avoid being ++ versions of others and have a specific role. They likely can do with a bump in CC but we need someone to do some more solid testing. And again, this is a spitball concept to create a themed list, not a well thought out list.

Quote:
4. Why don't we have Warhounds????

Theme: It's a raider force. Can't hide a titan even from space. Steel Legion and Ulani more than cover titans and armour theme. We don't need to butt in on their shtick. Also can you imaging garrisoning a warhound using Long range operations?

Quote:
5. Griffons: Support Formation 6 Griffons 250 pts. Company Upgrade 3 Griffons 50 pts. it doesn't seem very balanced. I think Griffons are bad and 250 pts is too much cost, isn't it?

Better to start conservative than OP. Grifons are under appreciated. You can do lots of shenanigans with them as a cheap AV formation. Testing, if anyone wanted to, would want to stress test them. When balancing, you can't just look at a unit in isolation outside the synergies and opportunities each formation brings to the table.

Quote:
7. Sentinels: No explorer sentinels?

What's that? Never heard of that in any of the IA books

Quote:
8. Rough Riders: Why not?

Because blue desert dinos. Also allows proxying with existing collections. Not everyone is going to sculpt a muukali

Author:  Pencanenas [ Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tallarn Desert Regiment

Hi again and thank you for your answer.

First, Hellhounds should be available only for companies? Not for Support Formations as Conquerors, Griffons or the Hellhounds?

jimmyzimms wrote:
Quote:
7. Sentinels: No explorer sentinels?

What's that? Never heard of that in any of the IA books


Bah... Language mistake. I mean Scout Sentinels, the common sentinels from SL list, for example.

And Rough Riders, i don't understand the answer, sorry. There are no RR in the Tallarn List and I think they are part of the lore of Tallarn, aren't they?

And the last one, these Marauder Destroyers. Do you mean that you have just imported the unit from other list? From what? I don't see it in any Official/Approved list. May it be in an experimental?

I appreciate your attention.

Author:  jimmyzimms [ Wed Apr 24, 2019 4:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tallarn Desert Regiment

I think we ganked the destroyers from the warhawk and elysian lists. It wouldn't surprise me whatsoever if the formation size wasn't different (such as flights of 3, not two) and an error/difference crept in or that we made a transcription error in price somehow.

Page 7 of 8 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/