1750 list

Does this army look like it would do well?
Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks.

Baron.

2 units of 3 trueborn w/ 2 dark lances
Venom w/ 2 cannons

3 units of 10 kabalite warriors w/ cannon
Raider w/ dark lance.

2 units of 5 kabalites
Venom w/ 2 cannons, guresone talismans (venoms run empty and give rerolls to beasts and kabalites)

Beast pack. 5 masters, 8 hounds, 6 flocks.

2 ravangers w/ lances

Void bomber w/ 2 shattershard missiles, flicker field.


What do you guys think? Awesome? Meh? Good? Crap lousy?

I was thinking of maybe taking a small units of haywire wyches, but decided against it as they still just seem so so to me. Then there is the do I really need 2 venom warriors units? Maybe change one to haywire wyches?...

Are you planning on putting the lanceborn in the venoms? They can't shoot when their vehicle has moved. Also, the missiles on the voidraven will be very situational, almost to the point of not being worth buying. They're not really good vs. vehicles, since their "reroll to wound" doesn't apply to armor penetration as far as I know. And you still have to fire all your weapons at a single target. In most cases, you're not going to want to waste those 2 void lances firing at infantry, so the missiles don't really mesh well, imo.

I'm in the 'meh' range

Immediate thoughts;

What's the plan with the Trueborn? For less points you could get 3 Blasters in the unit and probably have a more viable tank hunting force due to them being assault weapons.

I don't like the empty Venoms thing, because...why not just have stuff in the Venoms? Also, at that point, why not give some bite to those 5 man squads - will they really be that useful just walking around in your deployment area to claim objectives? Also, if you really want to do something like that, you could do it cheaper with Wracks, albeit they couldn't score, but...meh, saved points for something else.

I don't see the SHattershard missiles helping you much - what do you see as the point of the Bomber? Conventional wisdom is that it's there to shoot apart other fliers or enemy ground vehicles, and thus won't need missiles.

Trueborn keep out of the venoms (not a fan of the two birds with one stone thing). As for blaster born. I made 9 of them and loved them last edition. This edition they don't seem to have the range like they used to. I have been having better luck with lance born. But I do jump back and forth.

As for the missles on the fighter. Yes it's primary roll is AT and AA, but i have found that I do not always need the AA or AT when it flies on or later game. The missles have saved my ass and cleard out large groups of infintry many times. Missles also get used for light armour if needed. It has worked great for me, but i see your point about the missles. I just find tjst when i don't have them i tend to wish that i did. I love nuking blobs

I really like this list colin.

I think your reasoning behind the lanceborn is sound, I never saw the appeal for blaster born in 5th, and now in 6th with allies firedragons just seem so much better. In my experience 6th is all about target saturation, blasterborn don't give you that, lanceborn do. Venoms are a threat in their own right, and lanceborn in a ruin present a real dilema as if you shoot them they go to ground, if you don't that's to lances with a better threat radius than blasterborn, even if they do get shot up it's drawing fire away from the rest of your army, so win/win.

I also agree with your sentiment about giving the bomber two missiles. Our flyers are one of the only ways for us to get access to blast weapons, and the threat of large blasts forces your opponent to spread out. This is a real boon against armies like tau which really depend on being close together (supporting fire, ethereal blessings, etc). It's a small price to pay for the tactical advantage the threat of blasts brings.

Running venoms empty makes sense too, with S4 explosions I have really gone off keeping my units in transports longer than they need be. Besides you're forcing more threat saturation by forcing your opponent to have to commit to going after your troops which are an insignificant part of your army in terms of damage output.

I'm a bit concern about the beast unit with the advent of Tau and ignore cover weaponry, but that depends on your local meta.

Sounds like it should do well, no frivolous spending on upgrades, a good mix of threats, AT, AI, a counter assault element, something to threaten flyers and of course the baron.

My thoughts exactly Mush! If/when I play against tau the beasts will have a hard time. Bit there job is to soak up fire. They will just soak up less with those damn marker lights. Hopefully the 4++ hounds help with that a bit.

colinsherlow wrote:

Trueborn keep out of the venoms (not a fan of the two birds with one stone thing). As for blaster born. I made 9 of them and loved them last edition. This edition they don't seem to have the range like they used to. I have been having better luck with lance born. But I do jump back and forth.

As for the missles on the fighter. Yes it's primary roll is AT and AA, but i have found that I do not always need the AA or AT when it flies on or later game. The missles have saved my ass and cleard out large groups of infintry many times. Missles also get used for light armour if needed. It has worked great for me, but i see your point about the missles. I just find tjst when i don't have them i tend to wish that i did. I love nuking blobs

1. Makes sens to take the lances then.
2. Then I'd take the Razorwing - overall cheaper and will serve the dual purpose with only slightly weaker lances. You'd save 20 points, which is nothing to sneeze at, and would have +2 missiles and Monoscythe is really just as good as Shatterfield when it comes to killing infantry.

Mushkilla wrote:

I never saw the appeal for blaster born in 5th, and now in 6th with allies firedragons just seem so much better.

Well, yeah, though also more expensive and also not applicable for a 1750 list.

Mushkilla wrote:

In my experience 6th is all about target saturation, blasterborn don't give you that, lanceborn do.

You didn't think 5th was about target saturation?

Mushkilla wrote:

Venoms are a threat in their own right, and lanceborn in a ruin present a real dilema as if you shoot them they go to ground, if you don't that's to lances with a better threat radius than blasterborn, even if they do get shot up it's drawing fire away from the rest of your army, so win/win.

Though Blasterborn still have a higher threat radius than Lanceborn unless you're wanting to bring snapshots into the mix, which I would strongly disagree with.

Mushkilla wrote:

Besides you're forcing more threat saturation by forcing your opponent to have to commit to going after your troops which are an insignificant part of your army in terms of damage output.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I really disagree with this - either the units will be a big enough threat to draw fire and be useful, or they won't. The enemy rarely obliges me by shooting up useless units I field - that's why I don't field useless stuff. Yeah, disembark, saturate his fields of fire, but don't just disembark something that is a meaningless threat, because any half-competent opponent will treat it as such. Have the disembarked stuff be a threat.

Razorwing is a little too fragile and I prefer having just the two missiles and the better lances. The better lances have made a huge difference in armour cracking for me. The slightly better armour has protected my ass against plasma/equivalent weapons. I just find the bomber better and worth the few extra points. I have played both fliers tons. The bomber just works better for me.
The bombers primary roll is AT. The fighters is AA. I don't feel the need for 4 missiles.

I agree with your opinion of their primary roles.

However, you are paying 20 extra points to make your Bomber dual role, and I am suggesting that you could either save that 20 points by not bothering with it, or save 20 points by going with the Razorwing, which is a more functional chasis for a dual role flier than the bomber.

Thor665 wrote:

Though Blasterborn still have a higher threat radius than Lanceborn unless you're wanting to bring snapshots into the mix, which I would strongly disagree with.

Lanceborn in a piece of terrain in the middle of your deployment zone can threaten most of the board (72" diameter bubble 12" into the middles of your side). Also as their venom is empty it can stay safe at 36" range unlike with blasterborn where the venom needs to get dangerously close to use the blasters. Blasterborn are a lot of eggs in one basket. I feel lanceborn hedge your bets more.

Thor665 wrote:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I really disagree with this - either the units will be a big enough threat to draw fire and be useful, or they won't. The enemy rarely obliges me by shooting up useless units I field - that's why I don't field useless stuff. Yeah, disembark, saturate his fields of fire, but don't just disembark something that is a meaningless threat, because any half-competent opponent will treat it as such. Have the disembarked stuff be a threat.

A venom is a threat, by disembarking the warriors you prevent your opponent killing two birds with one stone: taking out a venom and some of your scoring units at the same time. The warriors give you late game target saturation as the longer the game goes on the more valuable scoring units become despite their damage output.

As for the Razorwing/Voidraven debate, I think AV11 is a big deal with flyers, and S9 is huge when it comes to taking out helldrakes and vendettas, against which S8 lances really don't cut it.

But that's just my take on it.

Mushkilla wrote:

Do they?

...yes?
Though I'll accept we're coming at this from a couple of different mental places.

Mushkilla wrote:

Lanceborn in a piece of terrain in the middle of your deployment zone can threaten most of the board (72" diameter bubble 12" into the middles of your side). Also as their venom is empty it can stay safe at 36" range unlike with blasterborn where the venom needs to get dangerously close to use the blasters. Blasterborn are a lot of eggs in one basket. I feel lanceborn hedge your bets more.

Okay, well, let's address this in two points.
First off - both have a Venom, talking about the range of the Venom is silly and not germain. We can talk about the placement of the Venom, but that's a different matter.

The real question is about bringing the weaponry to bear. Yes, 36" is very excellent, but 36" that requires your enemy to approach you is of lesser value. When you tout the value of a Venom's ability to stay "safe" at 36" range I think you're accepting that 36" range can avoid attacks, and that works both ways.

I personally find the 30" threat drop of Trueblasters to the board center to give me a more valuable and viable threat radius than a stationary emplacement. I can place an 18" range weapon (in reality 24") 24" into the board, which then gives me two feet from board center as my threat range with three dark matter weapons.

You are touting 2 dark matter weapons that have a 36" penetration with a 12" deployment.

The only time it is possibly a win for range from the lance boys is on Turn 1 - other than that the Blasters are continually able to threaten a larger area of the board.

I also have most of my fights in my opponent's deployment zone.
So for me it's a no brainer.

Mushkilla wrote:

A venom is a threat, by disembarking the warriors you prevent your opponent killing two birds with one stone: taking out a venom and some of your scoring units at the same time. The warriors give you late game target saturation as the longer the game goes on the more valuable scoring units become despite their damage output.

I agree with that.
I just advocate making the Warriors have good damage output - which I thought you were not. Apparently I was correct in not fully grokking you.

Mushkilla wrote:

As for the Razorwing/Voidraven debate, I think AV11 is a big deal with flyers,

Which flyers are shooting you?
I see it as a decent argument as a defense from ground forces going for the hail mary with a storm of bolter fire, but from other fliers?

Mushkilla wrote:

and S9 is huge when it comes to taking out helldrakes and vendettas, against which S8 lances really don't cut it. But that's just my take on it.

Well, let's just go ahead and assume one flyer is even a good answer to either type of army build likely to feature these, and that movement is not a better plan for this army - yes, the Void Raven has a slightly better chance to deal with a Heldrake or Vendetta. S8 lances can still cut it, and only one unit with the S9 lances isn't exactly going to cut it that much better at the end of the day, but I do agree with the general gist of the point.

I have not said otherwise.

I have said that I don't think paying an extra 20 points for the mixed used Voidraven is particularly worth it when you could save 20 and go with a Razorwing. If he wants an AA unit (to deal with Heldrakes or Vendettas) I specifically said that I thought the Voidraven was the unit to go with.

The question is, should that Voidraven take missiles?
I believe the answer to be 'no' because if I am paying out points for those Voidlances, then I will be shooting Voidlances.

Thor665 wrote:

First off - both have a Venom, talking about the range of the Venom is silly and not germain...

How is it not relevant? The blasterborn cant operate independently of their venom, as they depend on it to close on their targets, unlike the lanceborn. Meaning the venom will be closer to your opponent then it need be, exposing it to more fire.

Being at 31-36" range still lets you threaten multiple targets, thanks to the venoms ability to move 12" and shoot. Being at that range protects the venom from small arms and 24" range AT (plasma guns, psycannons, tesla weaponry).

You say the threat range of the blasterborn is 30" but that assumes they are disembarking into open ground leaving them exposed to retaliation next turn. If you disembark them into cover, that range could fluctuate between 25-30", an added risk as it could leave them unable to fire.

Once the blasterborn lose their venom (assuming they didn't go down with their ship) they become even less mobile, especially if they stick to cover, due to difficult terrain. Of course you could use a screening unit to grant cover, but that is likely to give your target a cover save too.

The lack of a third shot is partially compensated by being in range turn one and being less exposed to enemy fire (therefore being more likely to be around for more turns).

If anything having most of the fighting in your opponent deployment zone makes the lanceborn more survivable as your opponent is far less likely to have units in range to deal with them as he will need to get through the rest of your army to engage them.

I'm not saying that lanceborn are superior to blasterborn just that they are a safer choice and have merit. Blasterborn involve a lot of risk. They depend on their transport reaching the enemy without getting shot down, difficult terrain test if you plan to use cover, and the short range of their weapons leaving them and their transport vulnerable to counter attack.

Thor665 wrote:

Which flyers are shooting you?

I was trying to say that AV11 is a big deal with flyers because it protects them from small arms. Not other flyers, sorry for the confusion.

Hopefully that explains where I'm coming from a bit better (my writing skills leave much to be desired so sorry if any of what I have written is unclear).

Mushkilla wrote:

How is it not relevant? The blasterborn cant operate independently of their venom, as they depend on it to close on their targets, unlike the lanceborn. Meaning the venom will be closer to your opponent then it need be, exposing it to more fire.

Most armies bring anti-vehicle weapons to the table.
There is literally no reason for them not to shoot their AT weapons at our Venoms.
Very few AT weapons in other armies have a range under 36" unless they are melta.

I get what you're saying - but I don't think i agree it's as big a danger as you're implying.

Mushkilla wrote:

You say the threat range of the blasterborn is 30" but that assumes they are disembarking into open ground leaving them exposed to retaliation next turn. If you disembark them into cover, that range could fluctuate between 25-30", an added risk as it could leave them unable to fire.

Enemy board edge is 24" away - they'll either be able to shoot something or they won't - the terrain will not hamper that.
The argument could as easily be turned around on your Lanceborn - what if the only sheltering terrain is not on the deployment line - then your range is no longer 36"+12" but 36"+1-12"
What if the terrain will block their line of sight to part of the field?
What if only one Lanceborn can see out of the terrain?

Terrain being brought into the discussion, by definition, will favor the more mobile unit as far as ability to take advantage of it.

Mushkilla wrote:

Once the blasterborn lose their venom (assuming they didn't go down with their ship) they become even less mobile, especially if they stick to cover, due to difficult terrain.

Well...sure.
They're still more mobile than Lanceborn.

Mushkilla wrote:

The lack of a third shot is partially compensated by being in range turn one and being less exposed to enemy fire (therefore being more likely to be around for more turns).

And uncompensated by the ability of the enemy to maneuver to invalidate your lines of sight, or by them having any long range anti-infantry, which most armies do.

Mushkilla wrote:

If anything having most of the fighting in your opponent deployment zone makes the lanceborn more survivable as your opponent is far less likely to have units in range to deal with them as he will need to get through the rest of your army to engage them.

It also makes them more useless as they struggle to have the range and line of sight to bring their weapons to bear. I've played lanceborn - I've played the original sniper squad back in the day. I am aware of the advantages and disadvantages of that paired with a raider rush build. 36" is *very* nice, and it gives them a nice threat radius. But it is not 48" and it is not uncommon to loose your ability to shoot at viable targets due to the flow of the battle.

Mushkilla wrote:

I'm not saying that lanceborn are superior to blasterborn just that they are a safer choice and have merit.

And, conversely, I am not saying they lack merit.
I am saying Blasterborn are superior.

Mushkilla wrote:

Blasterborn involve a lot of risk.

Agreed.

Mushkilla wrote:

They depend on their transport reaching the enemy without getting shot down, difficult terrain test if you plan to use cover, and the short range of their weapons leaving them and their transport vulnerable to counter attack.

1. Actually not that uncommon in my opinion.

2. The use of cover is situational to your needs. If you need the range you can avoid it, if you don't you can use cover. To my mind the important question is to bring guns to bear on the enemy. i don't think a 5+ cover save will make my 3-4 man squad of T3 models all that much more survivable that I am married to being forced to use it.

3. Thankfully, things in their range end up dead fairly effectively. I have yet to be able to build a list that removes the ability of another army to counter attack. I have played many lists and styles that hamper the enemy ability to counter attack. You are sacrificing attack power for the ability to hide at range. I am sacrificing range for a cheaper unit that can hit harder. Both have different ways to force less counter attacks (being cheaper, I can field 'more' stuff, and also hit harder so the enemy will have less things to hit back with - you will not hamper their ability to hit back via damage or target oversaturation as much, but will count on range limiters to protect you - both are viable strategies and it's really complicated and situational to try to suggest one is so superior to the other. Both are good, and both are better in specific situations, but neither army is inherently weaker for a given choice)

Mushkilla wrote:

I was trying to say that AV11 is a big deal with flyers because it protects them from small arms. Not other flyers, sorry for the confusion.

That makes sense.