|
|
Post by Elaitor on Jun 24, 2008 19:37:39 GMT
They were never a viable choice for TMCs. And now even less so. Uh... ok... That's about only a half-answer to my question though. Besides, current RC will inflict auto-wound on 6 to hit, and it's a die you still get to roll to inflict additional damage. A minor advantage, but a comparatively cheap one at that. |
|
|
|
Post by yoritomo on Jun 24, 2008 22:10:42 GMT
I dunno, I thought that fully answered your question.
The only reason to give an MC rending was so that you wouldn't have to roll to wound if you hit on a 6. Now that you rend on the wound roll there is literally no point.
As for wounding on a 6 regardless of toughness, you're strength 6, minimum. You're going to wound any thing on a 6 already. Heck, on a fex you'll never have to worry about wounding on a 6.
If you really want to go close combat with your MC then you're better off with scything talons (or maybe crushing claws for a fex).
|
|
|
|
Post by Elaitor on Jun 25, 2008 15:55:54 GMT
Thanks, cookies and plushies to you  And muffins. Chocolate chips muffins. I asked the pastry store if they had anything that looked like Space Marines, since that's what my 'Nids like to have for appetizers, but they didn't so the above will just have to do. But to return on topic, I'll stick to Scything Talons and Crushing Claws |
|
|
|
Post by Sezar on Jun 25, 2008 17:15:46 GMT
And now my question is.....
What good does Rending do on a Broodlord? With a base strenght of 5, he can wound anything with a 6 anyway, and he doesn't allow armour saves like power weapons or MCs do. Regarding armour penetration, that 6 on the wounding dice will also mean at least a total of 11 with base str, so 90% of the tanks would get a hit anyway.
IMHO, they should give Broodlords +2d6 on penetrations like MCs
|
|
|
|
Post by Psychichobo on Jun 25, 2008 17:49:55 GMT
Without rending, against a vehicle a broodlord would glance av 12 at best, with toxin sacs.
With 5th ed rending, he can get a roll of six to penetrate, and add d3 to that, potentially reaching 15. So he can penetrate a land Raider. So it's not totally useless.
|
|
|
|
Post by WestRider on Jun 25, 2008 19:15:10 GMT
Rending also lets the BroodLord take on Apocalypse nasties that have T9 or 10, which he couldn't otherwise Wound.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Hive Mind on Jun 27, 2008 2:24:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Jun 27, 2008 19:26:03 GMT
In another thread, SirK brought up this army concept
Since it is similar to my current army concept, I wanted to explore it a bit.
First, I don't think the Flyrant can DS, but that will be answered at some point, and it isn't necessary for the army to work anyway.
As SirK reminded me. If you win the 'toss', you chose side first, deploy first, go first.
So lets look at the options.
You win the toss
You deploy like in 4E, normal 'stealer shock'. Maybe keep 1-2 in reserve to hit the flanks and keep him nervous. (probably the Blord and ret.)
Or...
You deploy 'all' in reserve.
Opponent will likely 'bunch up' in the middle. You can only assault 18", so that gives him 3' of board he can deploy on, and just wait for you to come on.
18" is what you have to cross in stealer shock anyway, so that isn't too bad.
Bad: You come in piecemeal (though lictors help)
Bad: They can back up so you have more than 18" to cross
Good: They are still bunched up, so once you get there, they will be hard pressed to get away
Good: You go first, so they only get 1 turn to move around before you come streaking in.
Bad: They will use that move to get forward, so they are still safe, but not as bunched up.
You lose the toss,
He deploys first
If he deploys 'normally', then we can start all in reserve. It looks great for us, except he still gets 2 turns to move away from the edges so you can't assault him. We are basically back like when we deployed first
If he deploys 'centered' we have a choice. We can start in reserve, just like as in above. It works the same, except he gets two turns to move forward into position. Setting up in cover with max fire lanes.
Or, we can just set up normally. It will be like a 4E stealer shock, but he will be bunched onto only 3' of board.
Thinking this through a bit. I think the best scenario is when he deploys first, and in 'fear' deploys in a block. Unfortunately, good players will realize that 2 turns is plenty to move out of the way, and probably won't do that.
I think the key is going to be *not* going 'all in reserve'. It cuts out too many options.
I think a stealer shock, with 3-4 broods on the board, and 1-3 broods trying to Outflank, will be a big improvement over the 4E version. They have to worry about you coming across the table, but can't play the edges.
The other idea is to go heavy with the outflankers, but have something solid on the table.
My current concept is 4-5 broods outflanking. a Devil flyrant, Devilfex, and 2 Boomfexes on the table. Maybe with some screening units....
That way if he bunches, the BSs can hit him, if he moves forward, I can hit him that way, etc.
Well, mostly thinking 'out loud'....
I am hoping that it may end up worthwhile to 'adjust' how many you deploy vs Outflank depending on your opponent. It is nice to be able to make that decision on the fly, and not during army creation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hyper Kinetic on Jun 28, 2008 2:19:21 GMT
Interesting... On a smaller board size, though, I think the Full Flank option would be very viable. If you are playing on something like a 4-5 by 4-5 foot board, even in lower points levels, Full Flanking would be quite devastating. However, what about the new Combat Resolution effects? Assuming that most of the things i have heard are true about this, such as the LD modifiers based entirely on differences in wounds caused/taken and that you can not consolidate into another unit, Genestealers on the charge would probably create some hideous modifiers that will break the unit. This is a good thing against Marines and Fearless things (aren't likely to run and so have to take extra wounds, but at least you are still locked in combat), but most others would basically wipe that Stealer brood in the opposition turn due to firing. But, i think that this sort of army would be kinda flexible if you can react to what the opponent puts on the deck and where it goes. And sure would be scary to get a good portion of the flankers on the board at once  |
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Jun 28, 2008 14:08:36 GMT
Funny you should mention that. I have a tourney this fall that is 1500pts on a 4x4 table. Heh....
|
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Jun 28, 2008 14:19:53 GMT
Cover, charging, React:
So I have been thinking about how to take advantage of the fact that the defender "Reacts" when you charge. (moves 6" towards you to get into BtB)
In 4E, we try to get as many of us engaged, against only some of them. We can't leave some of them out anymore, but that also means we don't have to worry about us either.
We can be more spread out. In 4E that meant that part of the brood may not be engaged when you charged, or if you got charged. Now it doesn't matter. Also means we can cover more ground. Since we can spread out more, we have a wider range we can assault.
And we can 'lead' them some.
(Pretending the hill is a clock)
Lets say you are assaulting around a round hill. We are going 'up' around the '3', and the target is at the '12'.
Normally we just move, fleet, charge, and engage them at the 12. But what if there is another enemy unit 10" away in the '9' direction. If we engage at 12, and kill them all, the other unit will shoot us.
But if we move, fleet only 1", and then assault. Then we *barely* get into assault, only 1-2 stealers make it. Thus all the defenders 'react' and come around the hill to get us. Now if we kill them all, we are still behind the hill and protected.
This can be used to pull units out of synapse, or away from a Res Orb, or away from a combat banner effects, or to let us stay in synapse, etc.
Now, this last use is a bit iffy. It depends on the exact wording of the rules....
In 4E the use of cover is on a model by model basis, not by unit. So if you charge 8 marines, and 5 are in cover, then those 5 hit at 10, and the other 3 hit at 4.
In theory.... in 5E we *may* be able to use range so we can only engage those 3 out of cover, then the other 5 'react' and close with us. They are now no longer in cover, and do not get their cover bonus.
Now, I don't know if this is legal or not, so don't count on it. But it is something to look into.
Just pondering....
|
|
|
|
Post by WestRider on Jun 28, 2008 20:06:15 GMT
Another fun use for the Defender Reacts move that I almost managed to pull off last weekend: Charge just the edge of a Unit that's holding an Objective. The reaction move and the pile-in at the end of Combat may well be enough to pull them off the Objective. If done in the end game this may well be game winning. Every game is Random Length now, though, so last Turn moves are much less reliable than before.
Regardless, it was priceless to see the look on my opponent's face when he realized what I was about to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elaitor on Jun 28, 2008 20:56:57 GMT
That's evil, but I admit I was thinking the same thing.
Just didn't have a chance to play it yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Psychichobo on Jun 29, 2008 19:45:24 GMT
I was checking through the Independant character rules earlier in my mate's 5th ed. book, and noticed a rule which stated that IC's can now be targeted like any other units. I gotta say, this'll make life a lot easier, particularly against chaos.
|
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Jun 29, 2008 21:37:10 GMT
I believe they 'automatically' join a unit when they get close enough.
|
|
"
