2000 pts of pure tanks! - Page 2 - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 15 (permalink) Old 11-24-15, 03:38 PM
Senior Member
 
Squire's Avatar
Squire's Flag is: Soth Korea
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: South Korea
Posts: 533
Reputation: 8
Default

Put multi meltas on the vanquisher sponsons. There's not much point shooting plasma cannons at armour when you can get MMs cheaper

The LRBTs are probably better without sponsons to be honest. I suppose the heavy bolters give you the option to shoot nine HB shots if you don't want to shoot the battle cannon (for situations where you just want to finish off a unit reduced to one or two models) but you have so many high volume of fire dakka tanks I can't imagine that being a situation that's going to come up often, if ever.

www.communitycomp.org/

^ Balanced 40k!
Squire is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 15 (permalink) Old 11-25-15, 06:48 AM
Entropy Fetishist
 
Mossy Toes's Avatar
Mossy Toes's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Eš
Posts: 4,249
Reputation: 117


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xabre View Post
Fair enough. I was never looking at the full battle group, because I couldn't care less about it. I'm actually sort of surprised, because Pask still is different then all other datasheets. Oh well.
You could still get a more-or-less all-tank battle group with Pask Command Group, Armored Company with vanilla Tank Commander, and an Artillery Company. Only 2 Engiseers and a Chimera'd CCS non-tank, and you get twin-linked ignores cover Basilisks & Manticores, maybe Wyverns on the other side of your deployment zone... Even if most of the Orders shenanigans the battle group grants work rather better with infantry & CCSes.
Mossy Toes is offline  
post #13 of 15 (permalink) Old 11-25-15, 01:45 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Xabre's Avatar
Xabre's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,848
Reputation: 72


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mossy Toes View Post
You could still get a more-or-less all-tank battle group with Pask Command Group, Armored Company with vanilla Tank Commander, and an Artillery Company. Only 2 Engiseers and a Chimera'd CCS non-tank, and you get twin-linked ignores cover Basilisks & Manticores, maybe Wyverns on the other side of your deployment zone... Even if most of the Orders shenanigans the battle group grants work rather better with infantry & CCSes.
So basically you're suggesting a Cadian Battle Company with the following:

Pask as the HQ slot (no lord commisars)

An Armored Fist Company as the Core

And then the Artillery Battery as the Auxillary and... what? CCS in the Chimera/Taurox and pretend it's another tank?


That COULD work, actually.

Xabre is offline  
 
post #14 of 15 (permalink) Old 11-28-15, 05:57 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5
Reputation: 1
Default

I mean the way it's written in the book, you could hypothetically interpret it as implying that Pask can be taken whenever "Tank Commander" is written. The same way you might have a footnote to define something the first time it comes up in a paper, but you don't define it after that initial instance.

It would look rather redundant to me if it listed that you could take Pask in place of a Tank Commander twice within about 3 inches of each other, but if they didn't put it at all I'd think people might argue "it names Tank Commander explicitly in the description, so you can't take Pask."
lthalle is offline  
post #15 of 15 (permalink) Old 11-28-15, 01:10 PM
Senior Member
 
ntaw's Avatar
ntaw's Flag is: Canada
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mississauga, Canada
Posts: 6,174
Reputation: 96


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lthalle View Post
The same way you might have a footnote to define something the first time it comes up in a paper, but you don't define it after that initial instance.
There's Space Marine Formations (among others) that stipulate only specific Unique Characters may be taken in place. Take for example this piece of recent literature, which states that only Shrike and no other Uniques may be taken in place of the Formation's Captain:



Whereas this Formation from the same book has a very different listing:



Those stipulations are there/not there for a reason, gentlemanly agreements before specific matches aside.

Unfortunately Canada got rid of the penny and now my two cents rounds down to zero, so...take it for what you will.

40k Army Projects

Industrial Table WIP
ntaw is offline  
Reply

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > Warhammer 40K > 40k Army Lists > Imperial Guard Army Lists

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome