|
|
| Optimal 1750 list | |
| | Author | Message |
---|
kenny3760 Sybarite
Posts : 462 Join date : 2011-06-15 Location : Inverness Scotland
| Subject: Optimal 1750 list Wed Jul 13 2011, 22:03 | |
| I was mucking about on army builder throwing a few combinations together and stumbled across this list kind of by accident. What do you guys think?
Haemonculus
4 Trueborn, 4 Blasters, Venom 2 Splinter Cannons
4 Trueborn, 4 Blasters, Venom 2 Splinter Cannons
4 Trueborn, 4 Blasters, Venom 2 Splinter Cannons
5 Warriors, Venom 2 Splinter Cannons
5 Warriors, Venom 2 Splinter Cannons
5 Warriors, Venom 2 Splinter Cannons
3 Wracks, Venom 2 Splinter Cannons
6 Reavers, 2 Heat Lances
6 Reavers, 2 Heat Lances
6 Reavers, 2 Heat Lances
Ravager, 3 Dark Lances
Ravager, 3 Dark Lances
Ravager, 3 Dark Lances
It packs masses of AV firepower, 9 Dark Lances, 12 Blasters, 6 Heat lances. Has 7 venoms for 84 poison shots with 15 splinter rifles to back them up. 4 small troop choices are probably it's biggest downfall, but I think I'd be looking to table people with this list. | |
| | | Local_Ork Fleshsculptor
Posts : 1500 Join date : 2011-05-26 Location : Near good fight!
| Subject: Re: Optimal 1750 list Wed Jul 13 2011, 22:14 | |
| IMHO you could replace Warriors with Wracks. I mean Reavers, Venoms... killing infantry at range should not be big problem. Staying alive with troops - this would be problem. | |
| | | Baron Tordeck The Helfather
Posts : 1872 Join date : 2011-02-28 Location : In your Nightmares
| Subject: Re: Optimal 1750 list Wed Jul 13 2011, 22:57 | |
| That it would be better as and 1850 list so as to get some FF on those Ravs, Blasters into the warrior units and a Liquifier Gun for the Haemie | |
| | | a1elbow Kabalite Warrior
Posts : 100 Join date : 2011-05-29
| Subject: Re: Optimal 1750 list Wed Jul 13 2011, 23:12 | |
| Okay in KP, but the "Venom's for troops" lists make me nervous.
In an objective game all someone has to do is kill 5 Venom's and your ability to take and hold is basically nothing. Will you kill stuff? Yeah, but I think a smart opponent will blast your troops choices out and just focus on keeping a squad of their own to get an objective. | |
| | | kenny3760 Sybarite
Posts : 462 Join date : 2011-06-15 Location : Inverness Scotland
| Subject: Re: Optimal 1750 list Thu Jul 14 2011, 10:03 | |
| Good replies there.
yeah wracks for warriors is a viable idea and then I could get FF for the ravagers depending on the size of wrack units.
I was working on a 1750 list as it's a common tournament size list here, I don't know anybody who plays 1850 in the UK. But yeah more points would help toughen and strengthen it up.
Tend to agree with objectives issues, but I really do think if I was using this list I would be trying to table opponents on most occasions. I have not found raiders to be any more reliable troop transports, it's a weakness of the list, fragile transports
Not a list I'm planning but it gave me some food for thought on how I could improve my tournament list.
| |
| | | Raneth Sybarite
Posts : 467 Join date : 2011-06-12 Location : ridin' the Razor, cussin' at my Wyches
| Subject: Re: Optimal 1750 list Thu Jul 14 2011, 14:29 | |
| How about swapping one of the Blasterborn squads for a 3-man Trueborn unit with 2 DLs? Dropping them in cover with FnP sure sounds nice. | |
| | | a1elbow Kabalite Warrior
Posts : 100 Join date : 2011-05-29
| Subject: Re: Optimal 1750 list Thu Jul 14 2011, 23:08 | |
| - kenny3760 wrote:
- Good replies there.
yeah wracks for warriors is a viable idea and then I could get FF for the ravagers depending on the size of wrack units.
I was working on a 1750 list as it's a common tournament size list here, I don't know anybody who plays 1850 in the UK. But yeah more points would help toughen and strengthen it up.
Tend to agree with objectives issues, but I really do think if I was using this list I would be trying to table opponents on most occasions. I have not found raiders to be any more reliable troop transports, it's a weakness of the list, fragile transports
Not a list I'm planning but it gave me some food for thought on how I could improve my tournament list.
Venoms, if anything, are tougher to kill due to having a built in save and a smaller profile. My point (if you were referring to my comment) is that five guys taking S3 hits will lose two on (rough) average and then all it takes is a thrown rock to see them run off, if they don't flee from taking the morale check from their vehicle blowing them up. | |
| | | Baron Tordeck The Helfather
Posts : 1872 Join date : 2011-02-28 Location : In your Nightmares
| Subject: Re: Optimal 1750 list Fri Jul 15 2011, 01:41 | |
| - kenny3760 wrote:
- Good replies there.
yeah wracks for warriors is a viable idea and then I could get FF for the ravagers depending on the size of wrack units.
I was working on a 1750 list as it's a common tournament size list here, I don't know anybody who plays 1850 in the UK. But yeah more points would help toughen and strengthen it up.
Tend to agree with objectives issues, but I really do think if I was using this list I would be trying to table opponents on most occasions. I have not found raiders to be any more reliable troop transports, it's a weakness of the list, fragile transports
Not a list I'm planning but it gave me some food for thought on how I could improve my tournament list.
Ahhh, cross the pond we play 1750-1850 of tournaments generally that's why i used it as an option. | |
| | | Sponsored content
| Subject: Re: Optimal 1750 list | |
| |
| | | | Optimal 1750 list | |
|
Similar topics | |
|
| Permissions in this forum: | You cannot reply to topics in this forum
| |
| |
| |
|