vlad
BattleBox Champ
Posts: 53
|
Post by vlad on Feb 16, 2019 0:40:42 GMT
Is it that easy to play around a marauder with a caster with Boundless Charge? The marauder can easily use forests or clouds to hide and make life difficult for huge bases if they want to be relevant in scenario. Cheers, Dave Point-for-point a Marauder has to be just about the most efficient thing for damaging huge bases, but in absolute damage terms a single Marauder is actually pretty unlikely to destroy most battle engines, let alone colossals. A Marauder with Boundless Charge against an ARM 20 huge base with Brittle Frost will do 47 points of damage on average, assuming all attacks hit. That is enough for any Battle Engines. Add in 2-3 Reavers to the charge, or a small Reaver charge on the turn before and we now have destroyed a Conquest with 20 points of models. Of course I know this doesn’t always work out as easy on the table, by Boundless Charge and a Reaver screen actually do often make delivering the Marauder easier.
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Feb 16, 2019 9:08:40 GMT
Point-for-point a Marauder has to be just about the most efficient thing for damaging huge bases, but in absolute damage terms a single Marauder is actually pretty unlikely to destroy most battle engines, let alone colossals. A Marauder with Boundless Charge against an ARM 20 huge base will do 47 points of damage on average, assuming all attacks hit. That is enough for any Battle Engines. Add in 2-3 Reavers to the charge, or a small Reaver charge on the turn before and we now have destroyed a Conquest with 20 points of models. Of course I know this doesn’t always work out as easy on the table, by Boundless Charge and a Reaver screen actually do often make delivering the Marauder easier. The damage is 36, not 47. Which means you'd fail to kill, say, an Animantarax about 50% of the time. My point wasn't that a Marauder can't do a lot of damage, it was that it isn't reliable for people to assume that they can take on Huge bases simply because they have one Marauder.
|
|
vlad
BattleBox Champ
Posts: 53
|
Post by vlad on Feb 16, 2019 12:17:39 GMT
The damage is 36, not 47. Which means you'd fail to kill, say, an Animantarax about 50% of the time. My point wasn't that a Marauder can't do a lot of damage, it was that it isn't reliable for people to assume that they can take on Huge bases simply because they have one Marauder. Sorry, forgot to write that I counted Brittle Frost in. I’ll edit my original post. But yes, without any help a single Marauder will have not be able to single round some battle engines or any gargossals.
|
|
|
Post by kovnikninehouse on Feb 16, 2019 14:17:06 GMT
This is what I am thinking of for Sorcha1
War Room Army
Khador - Sorcha1 and her colossal doom
Theme: Wolves of Winter 3 / 3 Free Cards 75 / 75 Army
Stockpile - Steamroller Objective
Kommander Sorscha - WJ: +29 - Greylord Adjunct - PC: 4 - Victor - PC: 34 (Battlegroup Points Used: 29)
Koldun Lord - PC: 0 Koldun Lord - PC: 0 Saxon Orrik - PC: 4
Doom Reaver Swordsmen - Leader & 5 Grunts: 10 - Greylord Escort - PC: 3 Doom Reaver Swordsmen - Leader & 5 Grunts: 10 - Greylord Escort - PC: 3 Doom Reaver Swordsmen - Leader & 5 Grunts: 10 - Greylord Escort - PC: 3 Doom Reaver Swordsmen - Leader & 5 Grunts: 10 - Greylord Escort - PC: 3 Doom Reaver Swordsmen - Leader & 5 Grunts: 10 Greylord Ternion - Leader & 2 Grunts: 0
THEME: Wolves of Winter ---
GENERATED : 02/16/2019 09:15:54 BUILD ID : 2071.19-02-05
|
|
|
Post by auraco on Feb 16, 2019 15:10:20 GMT
This is what I am thinking of for Sorcha1 War Room Army Khador - Sorcha1 and her colossal doom Theme: Wolves of Winter 3 / 3 Free Cards 75 / 75 Army Stockpile - Steamroller Objective Kommander Sorscha - WJ: +29 - Greylord Adjunct - PC: 4 - Victor - PC: 34 (Battlegroup Points Used: 29) Koldun Lord - PC: 0 Koldun Lord - PC: 0 Saxon Orrik - PC: 4 Doom Reaver Swordsmen - Leader & 5 Grunts: 10 - Greylord Escort - PC: 3 Doom Reaver Swordsmen - Leader & 5 Grunts: 10 - Greylord Escort - PC: 3 Doom Reaver Swordsmen - Leader & 5 Grunts: 10 - Greylord Escort - PC: 3 Doom Reaver Swordsmen - Leader & 5 Grunts: 10 - Greylord Escort - PC: 3 Doom Reaver Swordsmen - Leader & 5 Grunts: 10 Greylord Ternion - Leader & 2 Grunts: 0 THEME: Wolves of Winter --- GENERATED : 02/16/2019 09:15:54 BUILD ID : 2071.19-02-05 Why Saxon if you have an escort on most of your units anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Armchair Warrior on Feb 16, 2019 16:05:05 GMT
I was thinking the same thing about the above list. Why Saxon?
I really like Victor with Sorscha 1 though. Being able to trivially set stationary models on fire is fun. I still worry that you need to squeeze in another jack for scenario play.
|
|
|
Post by kovnikninehouse on Feb 16, 2019 18:49:50 GMT
Because sometimes you want pathfinder and the anti tough, he is also my go to flag sitter as he can do work and repo to a flag, also sometomes your greylords or sorcha want pathfinder too!
|
|
mazog
Junior Strategist
Walking and talking
Posts: 748
|
Post by mazog on Feb 17, 2019 18:43:38 GMT
Hocestbellum, I just read through this thread and I'm pretty sure you can't make that 9" creeping barrage wall off to the side like I inferred. CB states that each AOE has to be completely within range and field of fire. The field of fire gets pretty restrictive if you want to lateral the barrages like I interpreted your post to suggest as you can't have a line from the conquest that intersects both barrages.
Ok, technically you can have one line be tangent to both, but that is not going to let you get that 9" line parallel to the deployment zones anywhere but a fairly narrow range in front of you. I don't want to math out the arc at this time, but I can put together diagrams and math if you like.
I still think it is a valid choice for your purposes, but that particular aspect may require rethinking if I understood it correctly.
|
|
|
Post by Soul Samurai on Feb 18, 2019 7:42:54 GMT
you can't have a line from the conquest that intersects both barrages. It sounds like you're saying that the barrages block LOS to each other? I don't think the barrage AOE from a conquest is LOS-blocking?
|
|
|
Post by Armchair Warrior on Feb 18, 2019 13:21:23 GMT
Hocestbellum, I just read through this thread and I'm pretty sure you can't make that 9" creeping barrage wall off to the side like I inferred. CB states that each AOE has to be completely within range and field of fire. The field of fire gets pretty restrictive if you want to lateral the barrages like I interpreted your post to suggest as you can't have a line from the conquest that intersects both barrages. Ok, technically you can have one line be tangent to both, but that is not going to let you get that 9" line parallel to the deployment zones anywhere but a fairly narrow range in front of you. I don't want to math out the arc at this time, but I can put together diagrams and math if you like. I still think it is a valid choice for your purposes, but that particular aspect may require rethinking if I understood it correctly. You’re right, the creeping baragges are restricted to their field of fire. His original quote: I ended up going for Conquest over Viktor because of Creeping Barrage: the SR2018 central LoS-blocking terrain means that a lot of the time I can only truly mess up one flank at a time and a 9" wall of P10 can really help hold down the other flank. Plus, whilst I would never rely on it, sometimes Crit Dev will wreak absolute havoc. In context, I think he means you can have the Conquest deployed on one side of the board, and her 9” no-go-zone (backed up, i suppose, with POW 23 fists and a really big gun with a sweet crit effect) can hold down one side of the board all on it’s own especially if there’s a centrally located piece of terrain (like a house, or a forest). That seems legit.
|
|
|
Post by harrysan on Feb 18, 2019 14:54:20 GMT
I think it's because Creeping Barrages are 4" AOEs. If you put them with just less than a small base sized gap between them, you get 9" where a model can't go without going through one of the templates.
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Feb 18, 2019 15:27:13 GMT
Yes, that's right on all counts. 9" is the two fours with slightly too small a gap, and the Conquest ends up on a flank. The central LoS terrain means that a lot of the time forces will end up split, so in theory you can pull off a refused flank tactic and roll round. I particularly like it with Sorscha and her ability to freeze a unit solid, as she can really swing a flank that way.
|
|
mazog
Junior Strategist
Walking and talking
Posts: 748
|
Post by mazog on Feb 18, 2019 23:48:43 GMT
That all works. I was unsure which side of the board the barrages were on and thought it sounded like they were on the far side from conquest, or at least could be, and figured that might need clarification.
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Feb 22, 2019 13:09:42 GMT
The list seems obscenely good in theory, but I would playtest a lot of S1 wolves to know what it actually can play into and what it can't before making conclusions. Def 15 doomies can be not that bad into shooting, vice versa S1's control range might make some infantry matchups worse than they are perceived. Adjunct is cool and dandy, but he's not a proper arcnode.
Another problem is a pair for it. I wouldn't actually want to have AK there because by being infantry AK and Wolves share some counters despite major difference in stats. Probably S1 wolves + Karchev jaws (with S0) would be my first draft of a pairing for it.
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Feb 22, 2019 13:27:00 GMT
I've been working on jack-heavy Winter Guard Kommand. Because I'm contrary I've been running it with less popular casters like Kozlov and Butcher2, but there's no reason it wouldn't work with Karchev or B3. You get all the jacks and junior warcasters of Jaws but with much, much better theme benefits and ranged game.
But then, I'm a little biased: I think the only reason to play Jaws is if Forge Seers, Behemoth, or a second unit of Eliminators are essential to your plan.
|
|