uldrick

how can list building allows you to achieve objectives that cannot be achieved, in no way, mechanically in the current ruleset? like holding 6 objective at a time with only the warlord participating? re we agreeing that it is impossible for a warlord to hold 6 objective by himself? is it really the intentions of the game writter to put a combination that cannot be solved in any way (there are a few of them, refer to my first post), that can not be completed by the warlord alone since it is not possible within the game itself? as far as RAW is concerned, that card is clear, but as RAI, i feel there is a gap there....

how do you interpret that objective? the wording is on pg. 229 of the main rulebook. how does that works with the following tactical objective: 43: Hold the Line (pg. 228) i do not see how a single warlord could hold 3 objective by himself 45: Supremacy (pg. 228) i do not see how a single warlord could hold 3 objective by himself 46: Domination (pg. 228) i do not see how a single warlord could hold 6 objective by himself 54: Area Denial (pg. 229) how do we determine if the warlord done it be himself? 55: Psychological Warfare (pg. 229) how do we determine if the warlord done it be himself? i believe the RAW is severly flawed since the objective 66 is invalid with 6 out of 35 possible objectives, thats 17.14% chance that it is completly wasted and simply not possible to finish it. and that 17.14% is problematic by itself, it does not even need outside element (like absence of psykers or tank, etc) to make it useless. am i missing something or is it designed like this to have some objectives that can never be doable in any circumstances? what do you do then?

ok, thanks for your input. i will take this elsewhere, since it was about official rules, i believed it was the place to talk about them.

how do you interpret that objective? here's the wording: <Mod-Snip>See pg. 229 of your handy rulebook.</Mod-Snip> how does that works with the following tactical objective: 14: "score 1 victory point if one or more of your infantry or biker units made a succesfull charge" how does it works if your warlord is not infantry or bike, like robute guilliman? 43: <Mod-Snip>Hold the Line (pg. 228)</Mod-Snip> i do not see how a single warlord could hold 3 objective by himself 45: <Mod-Snip>Supremacy (pg. 228)</Mod-Snip> i do not see how a single warlord could hold 3 objective by himself 46: <Mod-Snip>Domination (pg. 228)</Mod-Snip> i do not see how a single warlord could hold 6 objective by himself 54: <Mod-Snip>Area Denial (pg. 229)</Mod-Snip> how do we determine if the warlord done it be himself? 55: <Mod-Snip>Psychological Warfare (pg. 229)</Mod-Snip> how do we determine if the warlord done it be himself? i believe the RAW is severly flawed since the objective 66 is invalid with 6 out of 35 possible objectives, thats 17.14% chance that it is completly wasted and simply not possible to finish it. and that 17.14% is problematic by itself, it does not even need outside element (like absence of psykers or tank, etc) to make it useless. am i missing something or is it simply broken)

assault centurions(flamers and hurricane bolters)+vulkan+flamecraft (1cp) stategium, lots of flamer wounds (re-rollable), add to that a lot of shooting from the HB (with re-rolls of 1's from vulkan) and then a very scary charge! will deal on average: vs Orks: 26.3 dmg on shooting 8.14 dmg on melee (24.4 if targets have 3 wounds) a potential of 50.7 wounds, (or 34 dead orks of 1 wounds each, a whole squad) vs MEQ: 10.5 dmg on shooting 6.78 dmg on melee (20 if targets have 3 wounds) a potential of 30.5 wounds, which is scary at the very least. VS TEQ: 5.2 dmg on shooting 1.36 dmg on melee (4.08 if targets have 3 wounds) a potential of 9.28 wounds vs tanks (T8, 3+) 4.66 dmg on shooting 16.28 dmg on melee (assuming multiwounds capacity) a total of 20.94 wounds, which can kill everything short of some super-heavies and lord of war. you could even swith 2 flamers for 2 meltaguns on one of them to add flexibility at the cost of horde killing power. if you can deliver these babies with a storm raven, they will wreck whatever they hit BUT are vulnerable to anti-tanks firepower sinc they have no invulnerable save

how do you think the following unit fare: assault centurions (x3) (HB+flamers) + vulkan + apothecray inside a stormraven (TLAC, TMM, SSML, 2xHB) for deployement, that makes around 745pts flying around the map. is that too much of a risk in a 2K game? i believe that would be the ultimate delivery system, but that is a LOT of pts in one bird. but still, even if it crashes, if it doesnt crash and burn and you dont roll 1's, your guys would be relativly safe nd with 20-45", they should be where you need them to (albeit quite more exposed than you'd like them too)

i am currently on the road to write my first list with the new codex and i noticed the points changes in assault and devastator centurions a good deal of my strategies relied on delivering a squad of devastator centurions (grav-cannon and hurricane bolter) via stormraven to where they would deal the most damage while the rest of my armies pushed on forward. but now, at 336pts for the squad (an 45pts increase), i find them hard to justify. are they just that much overcosted now? they cost a LOT, the grav/hurricane bolter squad now cost more than a landraider but are much less survivable, are they worth it that much? anyone using them can justify their cost now? i was looking at switching to assault centurions for their now reduced cost. and was wondering how do they fare? armed with 2 flamers each and hurricane bolter, they put out quite a lot of fire power, especially for salamander chapter if vulkan is nearby + the flamecraft stratagem. i can even see them viable with melta guns or with a combine loadout of 4 flamers and 2 meltaguns or 3 assault centurions. my main concern with them is their very low movement speed. 4'' is not a lot, and since the ennemy has a turn to move away before i can disembark them now, will that leave them completely exposed and unable to land a charge? are they worth it? how do they compare to aggressors? they are more expensive, better in melee and arguably better in shooting (depending on the configuration and potential targets of each squad) a lot more survivable against anything other than anti-tank or plasma weapons, but they are very slow. is their speed "kneecaping" them? or is that less work than i think it is. thank you for your inputs on this matter.