Tactical Command

White Scars Trial List -2017
Page 2 of 4

Author:  Kyrt [ Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: White Scars Trial List -2017

Termies in a thawk are good, but not 850 points good.

Author:  kyussinchains [ Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: White Scars Trial List -2017

carlisimo109 wrote:
Can you not take the Terminators in a Thunderhawk? The special rule implies that you can leave the Land Raiders home if you do, but you'd still have paid 650 points...

if you want terminators in a thunderhawk, maybe the white scars isn't the list you're looking for? ;)

Author:  carlisimo109 [ Fri Dec 16, 2016 8:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: White Scars Trial List -2017

kyussinchains wrote:
if you want terminators in a thunderhawk, maybe the white scars isn't the list you're looking for? ;)

Agreed, I'm just being picky about the rules.

Special Rule: White Scars Transport wrote:
...Detachments that come with vehicles will be noted as having "plus transport" (quotation marks mine) in the Units section of the detachment list below. White Scars detachments must take the transport vehicles for a detachment - you cannot leave them behind in order to use the unit as a garrison. You can only choose to ignore this if the detachment is instead to be deployed from a Thunderhawk gunship.

If the Thunderhawk is allowed in lieu of Land Raiders, the Land Raiders' cost needs to be separate or discountable.

Personally, I'd also use bold font for the parts of the WS Transport rules that are different from the usual rule - "White Scars detachments must take the transport vehicles for a detachment" and "If you choose to do this [take Drop Pods], all transported detachments in the army must deploy from drop pods." I know it shouldn't happen, but people miss these differences because they see a lot of text that looks familiar. I'd be happy to try to rewrite the rule in a concise way that looks different enough from the Codex Astartes version for people to actually read it, but we'd have to sort out a few things:

1. Are we sure about this Drop Pod rule? Right now, Tactical units are the only formation type that can use them even though the WS Transport rule is written as if it applies to a wide range of units. The Codex Astartes Drop Pod entry lets them take Devastators (not in the WS list), Dreadnoughts (not in the WS list), and Tactical units. Not Scouts, not Assault Marines. How flavorful is the Drop Pod rule if it only applies to the one or two Tactical formations that a WS army is likely to have? It sounds like you give up the ability to take Terminators and Scouts for little gain. I'd be tempted to cut Drop Pods entirely.

2. Do we want Thunderhawks to be an option?
They're the only transport option for Assault Marines, so I certainly think we should keep them for people who don't think Assault units could keep up with a fluffy White Scars army. They're fast for a brief period of time, but I wouldn't count on jump packs for strategic mobility - which is what the list tried to represent.

2b. Do we want to be let Terminators drop their Land Raiders and take a Thunderhawk?
This list doesn't need even more restrictions, imo, and it already has an awful lot of expensive detachments. I vote yes. Problem is, the WS Transport rule says their points cost is included - we'd either edit the rule to say they aren't included but Rhinos are free (I like this because Tacticals and Scouts already have non-free transport options in Razorbacks) and make Terminators ~325 points plus transport, or change the Terminators' cost to "650 points w/ (4) Land Raiders or ~525 points w/ (1) Thunderhawk."

3. Since Land Raiders are an option if transporting Terminators, why not allow bare Land Raiders? If we make Terminators take their transports separately, then it'd be convenient to have a unit entry to point to. It's not like everyone's going to start abusing them...

Author:  Kyrt [ Mon Dec 19, 2016 12:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: White Scars Trial List -2017

If you look back through the old thread there's a discussion about the drop pod rule (mostly me suggesting we do something about it to make it interesting rather than an obscure restriction) and a few other things you mention.

Others will not like the idea of letting terminators in thunderhawks because he codex list can do that, but of course so can plenty of variant lists. Remember though that white scars get to put 8 bikes in a thunderhawk...

However I do think there are too many restrictions in the list compared to codex and not enough in trade, whilst also having some quite clunky rules wording. Personally I think the white scars theme could be conveyed quite simply and elegantly with a single formation swap (add 8x bike, remove devs) and a one line army special rule: tacticals, scouts and terminators may not be deployed without some form of transport. Which yes also means dropping the drop pod wording, though equally you could probably get away with removing drop pods as an option entirely.

I think the most tricky bit is around thunderhawks, and terminators in thunderhawks in particular are such a ubiquitous formation choice for codex that it would be nice to shape a list around something different. If that is the objection to having terminators in thawks that's fine, but IMO the list needs more to stop it being "codex but worse".

As it stands I am planning to use the codex or dark angel list to represent my scars, as a) even with the core unique formation, I am shepherded to putting them in thunderhawks still which doesn't feel right, and b) there simply aren't enough bikes on the table because I lose the formation of 5. I think I would actually prefer to lose thunderhawks, teleport and drop pods entirely in exchange for 3 or 4 different bike formations with different roles (combination of size, scouts, attack bike variants etc)

Author:  carlisimo109 [ Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: White Scars Trial List -2017

I'm fine with dropping drop pods. It'd be an interesting rule in another list, in which it applied to formations that might often add up to the majority of a typical army. For the 'feel' this list is going for, I'd say no drop pods and no planetfall. Of course, then I'm effectively taking away ships and the list gets even smaller.

I would vote in favor of Thunderhawks carrying Terminators (and everything else they can carry). I don't think it hurts the theme if they've been flying alongside the rest of the army and not coming down from a spaceship.

Author:  jimmyzimms [ Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: White Scars Trial List -2017

I'd be far more likely to introduce Land Speeder Storms than basically something that in practice looks like 90% of most codex termie lists. Let's see how the zippy Vindicators work out first. You can stand on me, this list is not done yet.

Author:  Scutarii [ Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: White Scars Trial List -2017

EUK player but I'm considering using the Dark Angels list to be White Scars. You get fewer bikes overall (and lose walker on them) and lose the ability to put them into THawks in return for the ability to scout them forward (4 bikes, 4 speeders, 50%+ formation have scout so can garrison forward) and the increased flexibility in mounting things (i.e.: Terms) in flyers.

For focusing on loads of mobile ground units I'd go with the Dark Angels. Land Speeders and Bikes everywhere, couple of THawks for dropping off key units in key places.

Author:  jimmyzimms [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: White Scars Trial List -2017

Cool idea but let's keep this thread for actually discussing the White Scars trial list

Author:  carlisimo109 [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: White Scars Trial List -2017

The White Scars invented the Land Speeder Tempest - though I'm not sure it's different enough to matter. It has more armor, isn't used for reconnaissance (no "Scout") and has an assault cannon and twin missile launchers. Just throwing it out there.

Author:  flyingthruwater [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: White Scars Trial List -2017

Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm totally out of touch with new GW but isn't that just like the Typhoon that's in most Marine lists?

Sent from my 4034X using Tapatalk

Author:  jimmyzimms [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 3:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: White Scars Trial List -2017

Been a while but IIRC it also has deep strike ability so basically planetfall in EA speak.

Author:  mordoten [ Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: White Scars Trial List -2017

Hit and run rule, walker on all bikes, cheaper bike formations and restricted acces to some troops would be a great start for a good white scars list i think.

Anyone with good fluff knowledge who knows what they don't have alot off?

Could 4 strong units of scout bikers be something? Or is that combo to strong?

Author:  jimmyzimms [ Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: White Scars Trial List -2017

They lack any dreds (no loss there) and have less in the way of Devestators (though despite popular rumor, they, like the BA DO have plenty, just not a focus on them). They really like the Storm Talon and the Tempest. IN fact both are principal attack units that the rest of the force escorts.

That could mean a better focus on more bikes and more flexibility with them and independent formations of tempests/and of course STalons with load more out options (they come in AT and AP loadouts in Death from the Skies which AFAIK has not been fundamentally changed).

I did ONE concept test back years ago using the Eldar hit and run rule on bikes. It had merit to check out but then my group disintegrated when we all left the MS mothership so real investigation faltered. No one else seems interested to kick around batreps so...

We probably could swap out Navy flyers for marine flyers without issue. Not seeing a need for a bomber but if people complain we can take the THawk bomber. It doesn't in practice really bork anyone's collection as you just use the bomber in other lists or as an existing bomber model is just counts-as. It's totes obvious what it is.

Losing the overly restrictive drop pod rule is probably fine too. The real point should be that marines without transport or orbital insertion is not allowed so no garrisoning up table by ditching rhinos. If we're worried about that, losing the Dev formation is fine to additionally balance (probably comes with some other small point drops).

Tempest (it's a PF speeder) and more types / better bikes are mos def on the plan but without some more reports, I can't take that forward.

Author:  GlynG [ Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: White Scars Trial List -2017

As I said in the other thread it's the core biker formation that's the biggest problem with the list. The more recent WS background in the Horus Heresy / Black Library describes them often using hit and run tactics and feigned flight. Changing the core formation to be 4 strong for 175 would neatly cover this and make the list better and more flexible, without the need to invent an unnecessary new special rule to cover it, while the current 8 strong formation makes them much less likely to flee than codex bikers and goes against their background.

Fix the core formation and ideally add a LS Tempest formation, Scout Bikers instead of normal Scouts and the Storm Talon and I'll do some testing and write up playtest reports. The WS are one of my favorite chapters but I view the current list as flawed and dull (too similar to the codex list) and I have no interest in trying it.

Author:  Kyrt [ Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: White Scars Trial List -2017

I mentioned I played a few games with the list, it was a while back and vs EpicUK lists.

Anyway I did field some of the new changes, namely:

Vindicators: I fielded them with assaults as that felt like the best use of them, but they ended up serving no useful purpose as they never got into combat, despite marching in the first turn. they are still only 6 units so when they got strafed there was little on the table they could beat. They were basically just a speed bump. I would try them again though. However I suspect assaults are inherently limited by the same issue as in codex: just not powerful enough to make a difference, and poor attrition due to small formation size. Scouts are cheaper, have more units and are far far far more useful. I think assaults are just only really viable in thunderhawks, where the unit size is a plus, and the transport and abilities of of scouts would be wasted. I don't know how assaults fit into white scars fluff and wouldn't want to make them too much of a focus like blood angels, but one suggestion that could be in theme is to drop the jump packs and put them in rhinos with a larger formation size.

Storm-whatever-theyre-called were fine, I don't think there's much to say about those.

Terminators in land raiders did really well in one game, after stalling for activations they advanced on a warlock and took out several DC and the holofields, then finished it next turn. We played again a couple of weeks later and in a groundhog day moment they got into a similar position, but did zero damage and then were decimated. They did survive the game by running into a corner. My beef with terminators is of course that everybody knows this is the absolute worse way to deploy them, losing both teleport and thunderhawk tactical flexibility. They make a good BTS, I am just not sure if they are worth it and in the end the codex list can take them this way anyway, so I feel they ought to be cheaper still.

Bikes had some good moments when deployed from a thunderhawk, but the ground pounders were lacklustre. Despite being 'fast' they never seemed to be able to get close enough to bring their power to bear, this was a combination of the restrictive movement that being mounted gave (lots of scenery are buildings), them not particularly awe inspiring in FF (which makes them especially bad at dealing with troops in buildings) and the larger base size they tend to occupy. Getting 8 of these things into base contact is for all intents and purposes impossible. In my games they were also actually quite vulnerable being on the ground the whole time. As it stands I feel like they belong in thunderhawks, which doesn't quite sit right with me theme wise.

Everything else was the same as codex, but without any of the good combinations obviously ;) I took some whirlwinds which in general I feel are underrated and they performed quite well, but again it's not like other marines don't have these, it's that they aren't worth taking when there are better things to be spending points on.

I've said it many times but overall I just feel this list is basically 'how can we make this list worse than the codex list?', and whilst it makes to cut away much of what is in codex, what has been taken away are really the strongest things, along with an unquantifiable deficit in tactical flexibility.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 2 of 4 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group