Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

[40k] Marine traits - anyone use 'em?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 7:33:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Hi all,
Just a quick survey. Now that the v4 codex is out, have you used or played
against Marines using the traits system? If so, how'd they do?

The reason I ask is that there's a pretty significant difference of opinion in
my group...
One of us [the marine player] thinks the traits system is a cheesy, GW goof that
gives you something for nothing and makes the marines too powerful. And one of
us [me] thinks the new Codex took traits into account when balancing the armies
and that marines need to use traits or be underpowered. My opinion is based on
the fact that the marines I've seen have not used traits and have been getting
their cermite-plated arses kicked on a regular basis. Is this typical?

Later,
--
- Ward.
wardcb at earthlink dot net

Intaxification (n) - The feeling of euphoria you get when viewing your tax
refund, before realizing it was your money in the first place.

More about : 40k marine traits

Anonymous
May 9, 2005 7:33:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

On Mon, 09 May 2005 03:33:16 GMT, "W. B." <wardcb@NOSPAMearthlink.net>
wrote:

>Hi all,
>Just a quick survey. Now that the v4 codex is out, have you used or played
>against Marines using the traits system? If so, how'd they do?

The traits system is nice, not so overpowering if you use it as
intended (to create your own chapter with set traits). However, when
traits (and IG doctrines) are tailored to whoever you're fighting,
especially in a campaign, league, or challenge board games, then it's
getting cheesy and unsportsmanlike.
-Erik
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 8:16:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

W. B. wrote:
> Just a quick survey. Now that the v4 codex is out, have you used or played
> against Marines using the traits system? If so, how'd they do?

Eh.

> One of us [the marine player] thinks the traits system is a cheesy, GW
> goof that gives you something for nothing and makes the marines too powerful.

Did he forget to take the necessary Disadvantages?

> And one of us [me] thinks the new Codex took traits into account when
> balancing the armies and that marines need to use traits or be underpowered.

Marines are a rock-solid list, and have no specific need for traits.

I don't think Traits hurt, and I don't think they make up for a power
deficit. I don't think it makes much difference one way or another.

> My opinion is based on the fact that the marines I've seen have not
> used traits and have been getting their cermite-plated arses kicked
> on a regular basis. Is this typical?

Yes, against anti-Marine lists; No for generic lists.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Related resources
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 9:46:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

W. B. <wardcb@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Just a quick survey. Now that the v4 codex is out, have you used or played
> against Marines using the traits system? If so, how'd they do?

I've really started to take a look at what works for me and what doesn't. I
started out trying to be a long distance army, and avoiding close combat.
I'm currently evolving into an army that instead tries to get in close as
soon as possible. One thing I've noticed is that I tend to do *really* bad
at dice rolls[1]. As a result I'm really starting to like flame throwers.
I also have a rather bright (almost garish) paint scheme for my marines.
I've taken these two things, and am planning to use the disadvantage that
doesn't allow infiltration (there is no way the enemy can miss spotting my
army), and the advantage that lets you swap out a missle launcher for a 2nd
flame thrower.

I've yet to try this out, but I have high hopes.

Zane
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 4:40:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

John Hwang wrote:
> W. B. wrote:
>
>> Just a quick survey. Now that the v4 codex is out, have you used or
>> played
>> against Marines using the traits system? If so, how'd they do?
>
> Eh.
>
>> One of us [the marine player] thinks the traits system is a cheesy, GW
>> goof that gives you something for nothing and makes the marines too
>> powerful.
>
> Did he forget to take the necessary Disadvantages?

I've heard a lot of complaints on the grounds that taking a single
Advantage costs you one Minor Disadvantage, which is essentially free,
since you probably aren't going to be fielding a psycher, drop pods and
allies all in the same army. Of course, most of the Advantages simply
give you the chance to buy things for extra points, so they probably are
still balanced.

--
=/\= Lt. Cmdr. Jim =/\=
By our chocolate, shall they know us.
Not on behalf of any committee, real or imaginary, in this or any other
universe.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 8:07:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Lt. Cmdr. Jim wrote:
> John Hwang wrote:

>>> One of us [the marine player] thinks the traits system is a cheesy,
>>> GW goof that gives you something for nothing and makes the marines
>>> too powerful.
>>
>> Did he forget to take the necessary Disadvantages?
>
> I've heard a lot of complaints on the grounds that taking a single
> Advantage costs you one Minor Disadvantage, which is essentially free,

This why it's "Minor". ;) 

> since you probably aren't going to be fielding a psycher, drop pods
> and allies all in the same army.

True.

> Of course, most of the Advantages simply give you the chance to
> buy things for extra points, so they probably are still balanced.

I'm not so worried. Even though there are also a lot of options to buy
more of the same with minor upgrades.

I'm thinking of dropping the 40k3 Blud Angels plan on DC generation and
just moving over to extend my options to allow for Veteran Assault
Marines or else Veteran Devastators against a negligable penalty. This
also saves me a few $ on Codices, tho having an unusable Furioso arm is
a bit annoying.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 10:10:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"John Hwang" wrote ...
> W. B. wrote:
> > One of us [the marine player] thinks the traits system is a cheesy, GW
> > goof that gives you something for nothing and makes the marines too
powerful.
>
> Did he forget to take the necessary Disadvantages?

No. His argument was the disadvantages restrict you from taking things that
would be a stupid tactical choice anyway, and therefore aren't really a
disadvantage. For example, if you've got a ton of bikes and other speedy stuff,
then you probably don't want a lumbering tank anyway... you won't have the
points and it'll be off all alone on the other side of the board when your fast
units charge the enemy line.

> > And one of us [me] thinks the new Codex took traits into account when
> > balancing the armies and that marines need to use traits or be underpowered.
>
> Marines are a rock-solid list, and have no specific need for traits.

Hm, have to agree with that as I can't think of any real weakness the marine
list has. Though that completely fails to explain why the Marines I've seen
have done so poorly.

> I don't think Traits hurt, and I don't think they make up for a power
> deficit. I don't think it makes much difference one way or another.
>
> > My opinion is based on the fact that the marines I've seen have not
> > used traits and have been getting their cermite-plated arses kicked
> > on a regular basis. Is this typical?
>
> Yes, against anti-Marine lists; No for generic lists.

Hm. That's odd. We really can't tailor lists to a specific opponent because
the house rules mean we never know who we'll be facing in advance. The Marines
have gotten gayed by their dice a couple of times, but most of the time they
just plain lose...

--
- Ward.
wardcb at earthlink dot net

"There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn
by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out
for themselves." - Will Rogers
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 12:54:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Lt. Cmdr. Jim wrote:
> John Hwang wrote:
>
>> W. B. wrote:
>>
>>> Just a quick survey. Now that the v4 codex is out, have you used or
>>> played
>>> against Marines using the traits system? If so, how'd they do?
>>
>>
>> Eh.
>>
>>> One of us [the marine player] thinks the traits system is a cheesy,
>>> GW goof that gives you something for nothing and makes the marines
>>> too powerful.
>>
>>
>> Did he forget to take the necessary Disadvantages?
>
>
> I've heard a lot of complaints on the grounds that taking a single
> Advantage costs you one Minor Disadvantage, which is essentially free,
> since you probably aren't going to be fielding a psycher, drop pods and
> allies all in the same army. Of course, most of the Advantages simply
> give you the chance to buy things for extra points, so they probably are
> still balanced.
>
I like "wisdom of the ancients" take my Dreds in the HS slot, Thank you!
-Joe
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 6:22:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <GDAge.11809$hb1.246@trnddc05>, John Hwang,
JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com Varfed out the following in Timo speak...

> I'm thinking of dropping the 40k3 Blud Angels plan on DC generation and
> just moving over to extend my options to allow for Veteran Assault
> Marines or else Veteran Devastators against a negligable penalty. This
> also saves me a few $ on Codices, tho having an unusable Furioso arm is
> a bit annoying.

Hell, use the arm anyway. I've got some of the FW Dread arms, and
handily enough with the new codex I can't use the Hvy Bolter, AC, or
Plasma cannon arms, nor the pair of clawed close combat arms. That
being said, if I can master the beta version of the new Army Builder
design tool (thank you Craig), I'm going to write an 'Allies' patch for
the Dreads that will include those options.

Myrmidon

--
#1582. I think they call it Warhammer "40K" because that is how
much you are going to have to make per year in order to play.

- Eric Noland

# 1082. Pound for pound I can buy cocaine cheaper than
raise a Warhammer army

- Roy Cox

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/gwprice/

****

RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org

Or...

http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 9:43:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Myrmidon wrote:
> John Hwang, JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com Varfed ...
>>I'm thinking of dropping the 40k3 Blud Angels plan on DC generation and
>>just moving over to extend my options to allow for Veteran Assault
>>Marines or else Veteran Devastators against a negligable penalty. This
>>also saves me a few $ on Codices, tho having an unusable Furioso arm is
>>a bit annoying.
>
> Hell, use the arm anyway.

It's not like I'm going to sell it, as I have enough total arms. But it
is annoying.

> I've got some of the FW Dread arms, and handily enough with the
> new codex I can't use the Hvy Bolter, AC, or Plasma cannon arms,

That was very dirty pool by GW FW.

> nor the pair of clawed close combat arms. That being said, if I
> can master the beta version of the new Army Builder design tool
> (thank you Craig), I'm going to write an 'Allies' patch for
> the Dreads that will include those options.

It's not that hard:

For +20 points, a Venerable Dreadnought may be armed with 2 DNCCWs,
gaining +1A and counting as a Monstrous Creature (+2d6 AP vs vehicles)
in CC. The Dreadnought exchanges its Assault Cannon for a DNCCW with a
Melta, and may not exchange its DNCCW for a ML.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 9:46:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

W. B. wrote:
> "John Hwang" wrote ...

>>>One of us [the marine player] thinks the traits system is a cheesy,
>>>GW goof that gives you something for nothing and makes the marines
>>>too powerful.
>>
>>Did he forget to take the necessary Disadvantages?
>
> No.

OK.

> His argument was the disadvantages restrict you from taking things that
> would be a stupid tactical choice anyway, and therefore aren't really a
> disadvantage. For example, if you've got a ton of bikes and other speedy stuff,
> then you probably don't want a lumbering tank anyway... you won't have the
> points and it'll be off all alone on the other side of the board when your fast
> units charge the enemy line.

But then the army loses a certain amount of flexibility, so it's OK.

>>>And one of us [me] thinks the new Codex took traits into account when
>>>balancing the armies and that marines need to use traits or be underpowered.
>>
>>Marines are a rock-solid list, and have no specific need for traits.
>
> Hm, have to agree with that as I can't think of any real weakness the marine
> list has. Though that completely fails to explain why the Marines I've seen
> have done so poorly.

OK.

>>>My opinion is based on the fact that the marines I've seen have not
>>>used traits and have been getting their cermite-plated arses kicked
>>>on a regular basis. Is this typical?
>>
>>Yes, against anti-Marine lists; No for generic lists.
>
> Hm. That's odd. We really can't tailor lists to a specific opponent
> because the house rules mean we never know who we'll be facing in
> advance. The Marines have gotten gayed by their dice a couple of
> times, but most of the time they just plain lose...

I can't imagine the problem then.


--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 7:34:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <p8Xge.15196$U01.7124@trnddc07>, John Hwang,
JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
> Myrmidon wrote:
> > John Hwang, JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com Varfed ...
> >>I'm thinking of dropping the 40k3 Blud Angels plan on DC generation and
> >>just moving over to extend my options to allow for Veteran Assault
> >>Marines or else Veteran Devastators against a negligable penalty. This
> >>also saves me a few $ on Codices, tho having an unusable Furioso arm is
> >>a bit annoying.
> >
> > Hell, use the arm anyway.
>
> It's not like I'm going to sell it, as I have enough total arms. But it
> is annoying.

Agreed
>
> > I've got some of the FW Dread arms, and handily enough with the
> > new codex I can't use the Hvy Bolter, AC, or Plasma cannon arms,
>
> That was very dirty pool by GW FW.

I don't think it was FW - I think core GW *forgot* about the fact
that FW sells the alternative arms in the first place. Otherwise I
think we might see a few more options in the core marine codex. And I'm
not paying ungodly prices for a Hardback FW book if that's where the
rules for these weapons come out. The softback 'codex' books were poor
enough in terms of editing and particularly fluff.

>
> > nor the pair of clawed close combat arms. That being said, if I
> > can master the beta version of the new Army Builder design tool
> > (thank you Craig), I'm going to write an 'Allies' patch for
> > the Dreads that will include those options.
>
> It's not that hard:

Coming up with the rules and costs - no, writing an army builder
'patch' - that's a different story. I'm not familiar with database
coding, nor am I familiar with the xml type stuff that the new army
builder uses. Ah well - time to learn something new. :) 

>
> For +20 points, a Venerable Dreadnought may be armed with 2 DNCCWs,
> gaining +1A and counting as a Monstrous Creature (+2d6 AP vs vehicles)
> in CC. The Dreadnought exchanges its Assault Cannon for a DNCCW with a
> Melta, and may not exchange its DNCCW for a ML.

Hmmm - I like it, but I don't recall seeing the +2d6 for AP vs vehicles.
Did I miss something or is it your idea? I thought the dreads just got
S10+6 vs Vehicles (or is that with one DNCCW only)?

Myrmidon


--
"I'm already impoverished from buying wargames minis,
and I'm too knackered for riotous living..."

-- Moramarth

RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org

Or...

http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 8:55:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Myrmidon wrote on Fri, 13 May 2005 15:34:37 GMT:

> In article <p8Xge.15196$U01.7124@trnddc07>, John Hwang,
>>> I've got some of the FW Dread arms, and handily enough with the
>>> new codex I can't use the Hvy Bolter, AC, or Plasma cannon arms,
>>
>> That was very dirty pool by GW FW.
>
> I don't think it was FW - I think core GW *forgot* about the fact
> that FW sells the alternative arms in the first place. Otherwise I
> think we might see a few more options in the core marine codex. And I'm
> not paying ungodly prices for a Hardback FW book if that's where the
> rules for these weapons come out. The softback 'codex' books were poor
> enough in terms of editing and particularly fluff.

"come" out? The Imperial Armour Volume 2 book has been out for ages, and
that's where you'll find the rules. GW appears to have dropped all the rules
for arms they don't include the Dreadnought boxes (although DA still get to
use the Plasma cannon rules from the DA codex, at least until the new DA
codex arrives in the distant future), and they now live in the FW hardback
book.

>> For +20 points, a Venerable Dreadnought may be armed with 2 DNCCWs,
>> gaining +1A and counting as a Monstrous Creature (+2d6 AP vs vehicles)
>> in CC. The Dreadnought exchanges its Assault Cannon for a DNCCW with a
>> Melta, and may not exchange its DNCCW for a ML.
>
> Hmmm - I like it, but I don't recall seeing the +2d6 for AP vs vehicles.
> Did I miss something or is it your idea? I thought the dreads just got
> S10+6 vs Vehicles (or is that with one DNCCW only)?

The Furioso has +2D6 due to using both DNCCW together.

And even with the FW rules, the Furioso is BA (and successor chapters) only.
:( 

Maybe if GW finally sort out VDR for 4th edition there will be a way to
field them in a non-BA army.

Dan
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 8:55:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <3ek10cF3as6qU1@individual.net>, Spack,
news@worldofspack.co.uk Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
> Myrmidon wrote on Fri, 13 May 2005 15:34:37 GMT:
>
> > In article <p8Xge.15196$U01.7124@trnddc07>, John Hwang,
> >>> I've got some of the FW Dread arms, and handily enough with the
> >>> new codex I can't use the Hvy Bolter, AC, or Plasma cannon arms,
> >>
> >> That was very dirty pool by GW FW.
> >
> > I don't think it was FW - I think core GW *forgot* about the fact
> > that FW sells the alternative arms in the first place. Otherwise I
> > think we might see a few more options in the core marine codex. And I'm
> > not paying ungodly prices for a Hardback FW book if that's where the
> > rules for these weapons come out. The softback 'codex' books were poor
> > enough in terms of editing and particularly fluff.
>
> "come" out? The Imperial Armour Volume 2 book has been out for ages, and
> that's where you'll find the rules. GW appears to have dropped all the rules
> for arms they don't include the Dreadnought boxes (although DA still get to
> use the Plasma cannon rules from the DA codex, at least until the new DA
> codex arrives in the distant future), and they now live in the FW hardback
> book.

Hmmm, does it have all the 'Mortis' pattern stuff with the dreads
with two of the same type arm weapons? I thought that those arms all
came out after IA Vol 2. Or is that the 'new' hardback?

>
> >> For +20 points, a Venerable Dreadnought may be armed with 2 DNCCWs,
> >> gaining +1A and counting as a Monstrous Creature (+2d6 AP vs vehicles)
> >> in CC. The Dreadnought exchanges its Assault Cannon for a DNCCW with a
> >> Melta, and may not exchange its DNCCW for a ML.
> >
> > Hmmm - I like it, but I don't recall seeing the +2d6 for AP vs vehicles.
> > Did I miss something or is it your idea? I thought the dreads just got
> > S10+6 vs Vehicles (or is that with one DNCCW only)?
>
> The Furioso has +2D6 due to using both DNCCW together.
>
> And even with the FW rules, the Furioso is BA (and successor chapters) only.
> :( 
>
> Maybe if GW finally sort out VDR for 4th edition there will be a way to
> field them in a non-BA army.

Once I sort out how to make army builder files for myself - there'll be
a way to include them in *my* Marine forces since I've got the parts and
magnetic mounts - screw buying an overpriced FW book.

Myr :) 


--
"I'm already impoverished from buying wargames minis,
and I'm too knackered for riotous living..."

-- Moramarth

RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org

Or...

http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 10:51:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Myrmidon" <ImNot@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ceea69135dbb56b98a55e@news-server.woh.rr.com...
> In article <3ek10cF3as6qU1@individual.net>, Spack,
> news@worldofspack.co.uk Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
>> "come" out? The Imperial Armour Volume 2 book has been out for ages, and
>> that's where you'll find the rules. GW appears to have dropped all the
>> rules
>> for arms they don't include the Dreadnought boxes (although DA still get
>> to
>> use the Plasma cannon rules from the DA codex, at least until the new DA
>> codex arrives in the distant future), and they now live in the FW
>> hardback
>> book.
>
> Hmmm, does it have all the 'Mortis' pattern stuff with the dreads
> with two of the same type arm weapons? I thought that those arms all
> came out after IA Vol 2. Or is that the 'new' hardback?

Yeah, it has the Mortis pattern dreads for DA too. The hardback is Imperial
Armour Volume 2. The softback books were Imperial Armour I, Imperial Armour
II, and Imperial Armour Update. The Volume 1 and Volume 2 books (and soon to
be Volume 3) are the hardbacks, it's a common point of confusion with the
books. If it's "Volume <number>", it's hardback. At least for now.

> Once I sort out how to make army builder files for myself - there'll be
> a way to include them in *my* Marine forces since I've got the parts and
> magnetic mounts - screw buying an overpriced FW book.

If you can get hold of the AB creation software for v3 it should be easy
enough to just copy the BA entry, or create a reference to it. For AB2.2
it's really easy - no idea how to do it in v3 though. And you don't need the
FW book for Furioso rules - they're in the BA codex.

Dan
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 1:57:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Myrmidon" <ImNot@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cedda898549e81c98a552@news-server.woh.rr.com...
That
> being said, if I can master the beta version of the new Army Builder
> design tool (thank you Craig), I'm going to write an 'Allies' patch for
> the Dreads that will include those options.
>
It's a bastard isn't it?
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 6:56:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Myrmidon wrote:
> John Hwang, JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com Varfed ...

>>>I've got some of the FW Dread arms, and handily enough with the
>>>new codex I can't use the Hvy Bolter, AC, or Plasma cannon arms,
>>
>>That was very dirty pool by GW FW.
>
> I don't think it was FW - I think core GW *forgot* about the fact
> that FW sells the alternative arms in the first place.

I agree that the AC should have been dropped, as it's out of place in
the SM list. But given that the new Dread is plastic, and making a new
weapon sprue for the PC & twin HB wouldn't cost much, why *NOT* keep
them as options to match the Devastators?

> And I'm not paying ungodly prices for a Hardback FW book
> if that's where the rules for these weapons come out.

Of course.

> The softback 'codex' books were poor
> enough in terms of editing and particularly fluff.

The first one was OK.

>>For +20 points, a Venerable Dreadnought may be armed with 2 DNCCWs,
>>gaining +1A and counting as a Monstrous Creature (+2d6 AP vs vehicles)
>>in CC. The Dreadnought exchanges its Assault Cannon for a DNCCW with a
>>Melta, and may not exchange its DNCCW for a ML.
>
> Hmmm - I like it, but I don't recall seeing the +2d6 for AP vs vehicles.

Furioso has this rule, and it allows me to charge more for the 2nd DNCCW.

> Did I miss something or is it your idea? I thought the dreads just got
> S10+6 vs Vehicles (or is that with one DNCCW only)?

Basic Dreads are +1d6 AP, and they only have 1 DNCCW.


--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 9:05:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"John Hwang" wrote...
> W. B. wrote:
> > "John Hwang" wrote ...
> > His argument was the disadvantages restrict you from taking things that
> > would be a stupid tactical choice anyway, and therefore aren't really a
> > disadvantage. For example, if you've got a ton of bikes and other speedy
stuff,
> > then you probably don't want a lumbering tank anyway... you won't have the
> > points and it'll be off all alone on the other side of the board when your
fast
> > units charge the enemy line.
>
> But then the army loses a certain amount of flexibility, so it's OK.

True. On the other hand, in the 1500 -1850 point range, there's no way to fill
every slot on the org. chart, so this isn't much of a restriction. It merely
tells you which slots you aren't going to fill.

> > Hm. That's odd. We really can't tailor lists to a specific opponent
> > because the house rules mean we never know who we'll be facing in
> > advance. The Marines have gotten gayed by their dice a couple of
> > times, but most of the time they just plain lose...

We're quite generous when it comes to waiving the "WYSIWYG" rule, out of
necessity. With so few players, otherwise it'd get very predictable with the
same lists squaring off each time. So, everyone announces 3 Codexes in advance,
and brings a list from 1 of the 3... This has worked for us quite well.

> I can't imagine the problem then.

Uh, I think I've found the problem.
Part of it is we screwed up and misread the v4 rules! In particular, we missed
the bit in ATSKNF that says Marines can't get instakilled by a sweeping advance.
Now that I think about it, that's accounted for quite a few dead marines. For
example, last week's game had this scene:

Uber-pimped out terminator unit (6 termies) teleports in.
Eight Screamers of Tzeentch (120 points) charge the termies.
Marines lose the ensuing close combat 2 wounds to 1.
Marines fail morale check, flee, and get caught.
They should have just taken another (saveable) wound. Instead, we treated it as
a wipeout... oops! That's 3, probably 4 extra casualties right there.
Admittedly, losing that fight in the first place and then blowing the morale
check was poor luck for the marines, but the misread rule made it much worse
than it should have been.

Of course, the reason this has had such an impact is the marines have been
losing close combats on a regular basis... and that may be due to the fact that
the Marine player favors a small number of elite units. He's never taken more
than 2 troops picks, and they're almost never both full size. Call it 16
tacticals, tops, in a 1500 point list. The really expensive units don't earn
their points back, and the basic troops get wiped out due to being outnumbered.
--
- Ward.
wardcb at earthlink dot net

"There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn
by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out
for themselves." - Will Rogers
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 2:11:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

W. B. wrote:
> "John Hwang" wrote...

>>But then the army loses a certain amount of flexibility, so it's OK.
>
> True. On the other hand, in the 1500 -1850 point range, there's
> no way to fill every slot on the org. chart, so this isn't much
> of a restriction. It merely tells you which slots you aren't
> going to fill.

I would disagree. At 1850+ pts, the FOC is a significant restriction.
I can (and usually do) fill all but 2 or 3 slots.

> We're quite generous when it comes to waiving the "WYSIWYG" rule,
> out of necessity. With so few players, otherwise it'd get very
> predictable with the same lists squaring off each time.

OK. Tho extensive proxy can become somewhat confusing.

> So, everyone announces 3 Codexes in advance, and brings a
> list from 1 of the 3... This has worked for us quite well.

That's a good, less-expensive solution.

>>I can't imagine the problem then.
>
> Uh, I think I've found the problem.
> Part of it is we screwed up and misread the v4 rules! In
> particular, we missed the bit in ATSKNF that says Marines
> can't get instakilled by a sweeping advance.

Right. They take extra wounds that they will usually save.

> Now that I think about it, that's accounted for quite a
> few dead marines. For example, last week's game had this scene:
>
> Uber-pimped out terminator unit (6 termies) teleports in.
> Eight Screamers of Tzeentch (120 points) charge the termies.
> Marines lose the ensuing close combat 2 wounds to 1.
> Marines fail morale check, flee, and get caught.

OK.

> They should have just taken another (saveable) wound. Instead,
> we treated it as a wipeout... oops!

Pretty big "oops".

> That's 3, probably 4 extra casualties right there. Admittedly,
> losing that fight in the first place and then blowing the morale
> check was poor luck for the marines, but the misread rule made
> it much worse than it should have been.

Small consolation, eh?

> Of course, the reason this has had such an impact is the
> marines have been losing close combats on a regular
> basis... and that may be due to the fact that the Marine
> player favors a small number of elite units. He's never
> taken more than 2 troops picks, and they're almost never
> both full size. Call it 16 tacticals, tops, in a 1500
> point list.

I think I would typically field 4-6 units of 6 or Tacs at that point
level. But they would be backed by 3-5 units of 5-7 Assault / Devs. So
I would have decent numbers on the board.

> The really expensive units don't earn their points back,
> and the basic troops get wiped out due to being outnumbered.

Totally agreed. 40k definitely rewards sheer numbers on the board.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 11:42:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"John Hwang" wrote...
> W. B. wrote:
> > True. On the other hand, in the 1500 -1850 point range, there's
> > no way to fill every slot on the org. chart, so this isn't much
> > of a restriction. It merely tells you which slots you aren't
> > going to fill.
>
> I would disagree. At 1850+ pts, the FOC is a significant restriction.
> I can (and usually do) fill all but 2 or 3 slots.

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. I always have a bunch of open slots on a
FOC - never filled more than 10 slots, and usually less than that.

> OK. Tho extensive proxy can become somewhat confusing.

*shrug* We've never had a problem with it.

> > So, everyone announces 3 Codexes in advance, and brings a
> > list from 1 of the 3... This has worked for us quite well.
>
> That's a good, less-expensive solution.

Everyone in the group either can't afford the minis, or can't afford the time to
put the minis together! 40k is a _great_ wargame though, and we love to play.
So, whatcha gonna do? It works for us...

> > Uber-pimped out terminator unit (6 termies) teleports in.
> > Eight Screamers of Tzeentch (120 points) charge the termies.
> > Marines lose the ensuing close combat 2 wounds to 1.
> > Marines fail morale check, flee, and get caught.
>
> OK.
>
> > They should have just taken another (saveable) wound. Instead,
> > we treated it as a wipeout... oops!
>
> Pretty big "oops".

No joke!

> I think I would typically field 4-6 units of 6 or Tacs at that point
> level. But they would be backed by 3-5 units of 5-7 Assault / Devs. So
> I would have decent numbers on the board.

You'd take *that* many Marines??? On average, that's 54 Marines or so.

I most often bring the minions of Chaos to the table, and usually an Undivided
Legion, so my lists are similar in points cost to a Marine army, and I never
bring that many troops. All my lists have had 40-50 models, and I've been doing
quite well so far...

> Totally agreed. 40k definitely rewards sheer numbers on the board.

There's strength in numbers, true, but I've always been partial to elite
troops... Not convinced that you need that many troops, not when they're as
good as Marines.
--
- Ward.
wardcb at earthlink dot net

"There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn
by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out
for themselves." - Will Rogers
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 5:21:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <o3Dhe.821$X92.377@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"W. B." <wardcb@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:

> > I think I would typically field 4-6 units of 6 or Tacs at that point
> > level. But they would be backed by 3-5 units of 5-7 Assault / Devs. So
> > I would have decent numbers on the board.
>
> You'd take *that* many Marines??? On average, that's 54 Marines or so.

eh, I have a full company for Dark Angels(3rd), Black Consuls(5th), and
Angels of Absolution(6th), and almost a full 'company' of Space Wolves.

Plus veterans, terminators, and Wolf Guard...
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 6:26:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

W. B. wrote:
> "John Hwang" wrote...

>>I would disagree. At 1850+ pts, the FOC is a significant restriction.
>>I can (and usually do) fill all but 2 or 3 slots.
>
> We'll have to agree to disagree, then.

Not exactly, because I actually *could* use more FOC slots at 1850+ pts.
It may not be a restriction to you, but it *is* a restriction for me. :( 

> I always have a bunch of open slots on a
> FOC - never filled more than 10 slots, and usually less than that.

My last 1850-pt RTT Eldar army filled 2 HQ, 3 Elite, 6 Troops, and 3
Heavy slots (14/17 slots). At 2000+ pts, I'd definitely have wanted
more HQ and Troops slots, but could use the Fast slots to some extent.

>>>So, everyone announces 3 Codexes in advance, and brings a
>>>list from 1 of the 3... This has worked for us quite well.
>>
>>That's a good, less-expensive solution.
>
> Everyone in the group either can't afford the minis, or can't
> afford the time to put the minis together!

Heh. :) 

>>>They should have just taken another (saveable) wound. Instead,
>>>we treated it as a wipeout... oops!
>>
>>Pretty big "oops".
>
> No joke!
>
>>I think I would typically field 4-6 units of 6 or Tacs at that point
>>level. But they would be backed by 3-5 units of 5-7 Assault / Devs.
>>So I would have decent numbers on the board.
>
> You'd take *that* many Marines???

Definitely. Point for point, basic Marines are the best bargain in the
game. More is definitely better. :) 

> On average, that's 54 Marines or so.

Yup. Very resilient, very hard to kill.

> I most often bring the minions of Chaos to the table, and usually an Undivided
> Legion, so my lists are similar in points cost to a Marine army, and I never
> bring that many troops. All my lists have had 40-50 models, and I've been doing
> quite well so far...

Chaos is inherently more elite than Marines, but basic CSM are still
excellent. FWIW, my last 1500-pt CSM army had 48 models (including 5
Termies) *and* a Land Raider. If I had the models, going to 1850, I'd
field more CSM!

>>Totally agreed. 40k definitely rewards sheer numbers on the board.
>
> There's strength in numbers, true, but I've always been partial
> to elite troops... Not convinced that you need that many troops,
> not when they're as good as Marines.

It's never hurt me.


--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 10:26:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Andras Schneider" wrote...
> "W. B." wrote:

> > You'd take *that* many Marines??? On average, that's 54 Marines or so.
>
> eh, I have a full company for Dark Angels(3rd), Black Consuls(5th), and
> Angels of Absolution(6th), and almost a full 'company' of Space Wolves.
>
> Plus veterans, terminators, and Wolf Guard...

'Scuse me. I meant, "that many marines in a 1850 pt list". The guy who
introduced me to the game has a full company of Ultramarines, so I'm not a
stranger to the heap o' minis scenario. :-)
--
- Ward.
wardcb at earthlink dot net

"There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn
by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out
for themselves." - Will Rogers
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 10:47:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"John Hwang" wrote...
> W. B. wrote:
> > "John Hwang" wrote...
>
> >>I would disagree. At 1850+ pts, the FOC is a significant restriction.
> >>I can (and usually do) fill all but 2 or 3 slots.
> >
> > We'll have to agree to disagree, then.
>
> Not exactly, because I actually *could* use more FOC slots at 1850+ pts.
> It may not be a restriction to you, but it *is* a restriction for me. :( 

We have different styles of building a list, then. S'ok, that's what makes the
game interesting.

> My last 1850-pt RTT Eldar army filled 2 HQ, 3 Elite, 6 Troops, and 3
> Heavy slots (14/17 slots). At 2000+ pts, I'd definitely have wanted
> more HQ and Troops slots, but could use the Fast slots to some extent.

My last 1500-pt Eldar list used 8/17 slots. (1 HQ, 2 Elite, 2 Troops, 1 Fast
Attack, 2 Heavy) I don't anticipate being too restricted by the list even at
heavier points values.

> >>>So, everyone announces 3 Codexes in advance, and brings a
> >>>list from 1 of the 3... This has worked for us quite well.
> >>
> >>That's a good, less-expensive solution.
> >
> > Everyone in the group either can't afford the minis, or can't
> > afford the time to put the minis together!
>
> Heh. :) 

Oh, like we're the only ones that's true for. :-) Personally, I'm planning to
retire in 2 years, so I'm time crunched right now... consequently, some of my
minis are among the more flagrant breaches of the WYSIWYG rule that our group
permits. :-/ Putting together a respectable, tournament legal army is one of
the kazillion things on my post-retirement to-do list.

> >>I think I would typically field 4-6 units of 6 or Tacs at that point
> >>level. But they would be backed by 3-5 units of 5-7 Assault / Devs.
> >>So I would have decent numbers on the board.
> >
> > You'd take *that* many Marines???
>
> Definitely. Point for point, basic Marines are the best bargain in the
> game. More is definitely better. :) 

Good point. Marines are decent at everything, and with that toughness mistakes
are often survivable.

> > On average, that's 54 Marines or so.
>
> Yup. Very resilient, very hard to kill.

The worst army I've ever seen as far as hard to kill was the Necron Phalanx of
Doom. Fifty six Necron models, thirty six of them basic warriors, in a 1500
point list... and every unit, except the scarabs which don't WBB anyway, had one
model within 6" of the Lord with the Resurrection Orb.

> Chaos is inherently more elite than Marines, but basic CSM are still
> excellent. FWIW, my last 1500-pt CSM army had 48 models (including 5
> Termies) *and* a Land Raider. If I had the models, going to 1850, I'd
> field more CSM!

All my 1500 point Chaos lists have had 42-48 models except one, so no argument
there. The one was a pure World Eaters list where I just took leave of my
sanity. For a 1500 point game, I used just six slots on the FoC, and brought 39
models. That one I wanted to see just how obscene a Chosen unit could get, so I
decided to bring some Knights from Hell: A unit of Chosen, all upgraded to
AspChamps so they can purchase wargear. *All* with Mark of Khorne, Juggernauts,
Feel no Pain, pistols and Khornate Chainaxes or better hand to hand weapons. It
ended up being 398 points for five Chosen. Mind you, that's 10 wounds thanks to
the Juggernauts, they ignore most wounds on a 4+ anyway, and get 30 attacks when
charging...

> > There's strength in numbers, true, but I've always been partial
> > to elite troops... Not convinced that you need that many troops,
> > not when they're as good as Marines.
>
> It's never hurt me.

If its silly and it works, it ain't silly. :-)
--
- Ward.
wardcb at earthlink dot net

"There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn
by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out
for themselves." - Will Rogers
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 12:44:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:sxThe.8660$Iw1.3108@trnddc03...

>> There's strength in numbers, true, but I've always been
>> partial to elite troops... Not convinced that you need that
>> many troops, not when they're as good as Marines.
>
> It's never hurt me.

I have played CSM a lot. And its a constant amazement for me how
often the basic marines are the ones who get the job done. I
allways bring lots of troops. As was stated earlier in this
thread they are the best points you can spend.

Regards

Lars
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 3:37:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

It was a cold day in September when W. B. entered the world pub known as
rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...

> "Andras Schneider" wrote...
> > "W. B." wrote:
>
> > > You'd take *that* many Marines??? On average, that's 54 Marines or so.
> >
> > eh, I have a full company for Dark Angels(3rd), Black Consuls(5th), and
> > Angels of Absolution(6th), and almost a full 'company' of Space Wolves.
> >
> > Plus veterans, terminators, and Wolf Guard...
>
> 'Scuse me. I meant, "that many marines in a 1850 pt list". The guy who
> introduced me to the game has a full company of Ultramarines, so I'm not a
> stranger to the heap o' minis scenario. :-)
>
My 1500 point Marine armies used to average about 70 marines, another 350
points would just mean more groans and cries of cheese from my opponents as
would use it to field even more troops...
--
Jim M

"Look alive. Here comes a buzzard." -- Walt Kelly (Pogo)
"The only game I like to play is Old Maid - provided she's not too old." --
Groucho Marx

http://jimac.tripod.com
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 8:06:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

W. B. wrote:
> "John Hwang" wrote...

>>Not exactly, because I actually *could* use more FOC slots at
>>1850+ pts. It may not be a restriction to you, but it *is* a
>>restriction for me. :( 
>
> We have different styles of building a list, then. S'ok, that's
> what makes the game interesting.

Yup.

>>My last 1850-pt RTT Eldar army filled 2 HQ, 3 Elite, 6 Troops, and 3
>>Heavy slots (14/17 slots). At 2000+ pts, I'd definitely have wanted
>>more HQ and Troops slots, but could use the Fast slots to some extent.
>
> My last 1500-pt Eldar list used 8/17 slots. (1 HQ, 2 Elite, 2 Troops,
> 1 Fast Attack, 2 Heavy) I don't anticipate being too restricted
> by the list even at heavier points values.

OK.

> Oh, like we're the only ones that's true for. :-) Personally, I'm planning to
> retire in 2 years, so I'm time crunched right now... consequently, some of my
> minis are among the more flagrant breaches of the WYSIWYG rule that our group
> permits. :-/ Putting together a respectable, tournament legal army is one of
> the kazillion things on my post-retirement to-do list.

Heh. At least I've got the legal army thing out of the way.

>>Point for point, basic Marines are the best bargain in the
>>game. More is definitely better. :) 
>
> Good point. Marines are decent at everything, and with that toughness
> mistakes are often survivable.

Precisely so. Marines are extremely forgiving.

>>>On average, that's 54 Marines or so.
>>
>>Yup. Very resilient, very hard to kill.
>
> The worst army I've ever seen as far as hard to kill was the Necron Phalanx of
> Doom. Fifty six Necron models, thirty six of them basic warriors, in a 1500
> point list... and every unit, except the scarabs which don't WBB anyway, had one
> model within 6" of the Lord with the Resurrection Orb.

Ew.

>>If I had the models, going to 1850, I'd field more CSM!
>
> All my 1500 point Chaos lists have had 42-48 models except one, so no argument
> there. The one was a pure World Eaters list where I just took leave of my
> sanity. For a 1500 point game, I used just six slots on the FoC, and brought 39
> models. That one I wanted to see just how obscene a Chosen unit could get, so I
> decided to bring some Knights from Hell: A unit of Chosen, all upgraded to
> AspChamps so they can purchase wargear. *All* with Mark of Khorne, Juggernauts,
> Feel no Pain, pistols and Khornate Chainaxes or better hand to hand weapons. It
> ended up being 398 points for five Chosen. Mind you, that's 10 wounds thanks to
> the Juggernauts, they ignore most wounds on a 4+ anyway, and get 30 attacks when
> charging...

Oh, how I'd *love* to face that with my IG...

2 Demolishers, backed by a Leman Russ -- you'd Feel some Pain, that's
for sure. :) 

> If its silly and it works, it ain't silly. :-)

;) 

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 9:49:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"John Hwang" wrote...
> W. B. wrote:
> > "John Hwang" wrote...

> Heh. At least I've got the legal army thing out of the way.

Which Codex? Your IG army?

> > Good point. Marines are decent at everything, and with that toughness
> > mistakes are often survivable.
>
> Precisely so. Marines are extremely forgiving.

Hence the "n00bies 'r us" bumper sticker on the tail of each Rhino. ;-)

> > Fifty six Necron models, thirty six of them basic warriors, in a 1500
> > point list... and every unit, except the scarabs which don't WBB anyway, had
one
> > model within 6" of the Lord with the Resurrection Orb.
>
> Ew.

Yeah, break out the cheese grater and the steel wool, it's pot-scrubbin' time!

> > All my 1500 point Chaos lists have had 42-48 models except one, so no
argument
> > there. The one was a pure World Eaters list where I just took leave of my
> > sanity. For a 1500 point game, I used just six slots on the FoC, and
brought 39
> > models. [snip]
>
> Oh, how I'd *love* to face that with my IG...
>
> 2 Demolishers, backed by a Leman Russ -- you'd Feel some Pain, that's
> for sure. :) 

Yeah, that list doesn't do too well against ordnance! Just for fun, here's my
complete, and completely outta my mind, Khorne list - do try not to drool on the
keyboard.

HQ
Bloodthirster x 1 = 205 pts

Elites
Chosen x 5 = 398 pts
Mark of Khorne x 5, AspChamp x 5, Feel no Pain x5, Juggernaut x 5, [Khornate
Chainaxe & Bolt Pistol] x 3, [Icon, Collar of Khorne, Power Weapon & Bolt
Pistol] x1, [Daemonic Strength, Power Fist & Bolt Pistol] x 1

Troops
Bloodletters x 8 = 208 pts (favored unit)

Troops
Chaos Space Marine x 16 = 336 pts (favored unit)
[Mark of Khorne, Frags, Bolt Pistol & Khornate Chainaxe] x 16, Expiring Champion
= daemonvessel.

Fast Attack
Flesh Hounds of Khorne x 8 = 168 pts (favored unit)

Heavy Support
Defiler x 1 = 185 pts
Havoc Launcher, TL Heavy Bolter, Dedicated to Khorne - Destroyer upgrade

Total: 39 models, 1500 points exactly
--
- Ward.
wardcb at earthlink dot net

"There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn
by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out
for themselves." - Will Rogers
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 10:28:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

W. B. wrote:
> "John Hwang" wrote...

>>Heh. At least I've got the legal army thing out of the way.
>
> Which Codex? Your IG army?

My Eldar are painted and based. My other 40k armies are at least Painted.

>>Marines are extremely forgiving.
>
> Hence the "n00bies 'r us" bumper sticker on the tail of each Rhino. ;-)

Hey, it works.

>>>Fifty six Necron models, thirty six of them basic warriors, in a 1500
>>>point list... and every unit, except the scarabs which don't WBB
>>>anyway, had one model within 6" of the Lord with the Resurrection Orb.
>>
>>Ew.
>
> Yeah, break out the cheese grater and the steel wool, it's pot-scrubbin' time!
>
>>>All my 1500 point Chaos lists have had 42-48 models except one,
>>>so no argument there. The one was a pure World Eaters list where
>>>I just took leave of my sanity. For a 1500 point game, I used
>>>just six slots on the FoC, and brought 39 models. [snip]
>>
>>Oh, how I'd *love* to face that with my IG...
>>
>>2 Demolishers, backed by a Leman Russ -- you'd Feel some Pain, that's
>>for sure. :) 
>
> Yeah, that list doesn't do too well against ordnance! Just for fun, here's my
> complete, and completely outta my mind, Khorne list - do try not to drool on the
> keyboard.
>
> HQ
> Bloodthirster x 1 = 205 pts

OK, that's actually something of a problem if I don't pop him quickly.

> Elites
> Chosen x 5 = 398 pts
> Mark of Khorne x 5, AspChamp x 5, Feel no Pain x5, Juggernaut x 5, [Khornate
> Chainaxe & Bolt Pistol] x 3, [Icon, Collar of Khorne, Power Weapon & Bolt
> Pistol] x1, [Daemonic Strength, Power Fist & Bolt Pistol] x 1

Ka-ching, ka-ching!

> Troops
> Bloodletters x 8 = 208 pts (favored unit)

Ka-ching!

> Troops
> Chaos Space Marine x 16 = 336 pts (favored unit)
> [Mark of Khorne, Frags, Bolt Pistol & Khornate Chainaxe] x 16, Expiring Champion
> = daemonvessel.

Ka-ching!

> Fast Attack
> Flesh Hounds of Khorne x 8 = 168 pts (favored unit)

These are also annoying.

> Heavy Support
> Defiler x 1 = 185 pts
> Havoc Launcher, TL Heavy Bolter, Dedicated to Khorne - Destroyer upgrade

Pop!

> Total: 39 models, 1500 points exactly

My most recent IG list was as follows:

5 IG Sr. Command w/ ML, 2PG [90].
Heavy team w/ 3 ML [95].

Orrus Spyrer w/ BP, Ev, 4+I. (WH Inq. Lord) [96].
3 Jakara Spyrer (WH Crusader) [60].
2 Drones (WH Acolyte) [16].
1 Servo Skull (WH Familiar) [6].
Land Raider w/ XAS [258].

Malcadon Spyrer (WH Eversor Assassin) [95].

5 IG Jr. Command w/ ML, 2PG [75].
10 IG w/ ML, PG [85].
10 IG w/ ML, PG [85].
6 Escher w/ PG (IG Remnants) [46].

10 IG w/ ML, PG [85].
Chimera w/ 2HB, XAS [93].

6 Grenadiers w/ 2 Plasma [80].
6 Grenadiers w/ 2 Flamers [72].

IG Leman Russ w/ HB, Comms, XAS [173].
IG Demolisher w/ HB, XAS [163].
IG Demolisher w/ HB, XAS [163].

It has decent numbers, and firepower to get things done. I was planning
to field this at the 2004 LA GT, but ended up not being able to play. :( 


--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
!