Natanael Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Okey, I've had a thought in my head the last two days, and I have to ask. A friend of mine have had some sucess in using an Inquisitor w/ TDA & Psycannon as some kind of walking attackbike/support. He playes DH, and he claims the little Inq almost always makes his points back. This got me thinking, if we could do something similar, and thus I came up with this loadout: WGBL - TDA - Cyclone ML - Storm Shield - Runic Charm - Total of X points. (havent got the time to work it through w/ dex). My thought was to have him alone, in cover or out of sight, at the start of the game, and when my pods start arriving, or my army closes in, he'll step forward and start popping tanks from the side and front. Do you think it is viable? After all it is two S8 missiles, at BS5 per turn. That should kill something. You'd have to be careful not to expose him too much, but then again, I think he can do a desent job. What do you think? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roguemarine Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 some might disagree with me, but i think our characters place in the army is in CC, yes the WGBL's can take heavy weapons, but in this instance he is almost dead meat to a single las cannon shot, especially in a KP mission. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2019758 Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeffWolf Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 total = 105pts. are you thinking of embellishing him at all with a decent close combat weapon, since he's relentless in TDA it would help, and a wolf pelt might give him some extra oomph in CC. i like the idea - a mate of mine on here thought about having the very same with 6 wolf guard bodyguard. two of which have CML too. hehe, 3 CML in one squad. apocolaypse of course but no end of fun Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2019762 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 He has to be in TDA to get a CML. I reccommend getting four fenrisian wolves, and then giving him a frostblade instead of the SS. But thats because I cannot conscience the idea of a terminator who doesnt ignore armor saves. It feels... moronic. WGBL: -TDA. -Frostblade. -CML- Mastercrafted. -2x Fenrisian Wolves. -Runic Charm. 170pts. Can take on a tactical squad by himself, can kill light and cavalry tanks by himself, and can take sustained fire from almost any unit in the game without worry. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2020425 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacefrisian Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 If you do wanna go over the top... WGBL: -TDA, Frostblade, Cyclonelauncher, assaultcannon, Wolfpelt Thats like a 1 man army. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2020572 Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunchb0x Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 apocolaypse of course but no end of fun Why would you only play that in apoc?? Play that in a normal bloody game!!! :unsure: or my fav 3 assault cannons...all master crafted. :P OP : If you run the HQ, run him with a body guard...or some wolves. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2020612 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natanael Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share Posted June 13, 2009 The thing was that I wanted him to be alone, without bodyguard. But maybe some wolves. I have to try this out. I NEED to get my wolves, I need them now :unsure: (they are at a friends house, awaiting clean-up to repaint). Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2020616 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hfran Morkai Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 apocolaypse of course but no end of fun Why would you only play that in apoc?? Play that in a normal bloody game!!! :tu: or my fav 3 assault cannons...all master crafted. :D OP : If you run the HQ, run him with a body guard...or some wolves. Theblem is it is far too expensive to play in normal games! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2020711 Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyInDeath Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 apocolaypse of course but no end of fun Why would you only play that in apoc?? Play that in a normal bloody game!!! :tu: or my fav 3 assault cannons...all master crafted. :D OP : If you run the HQ, run him with a body guard...or some wolves. Theblem is it is far too expensive to play in normal games! That and mastercrafting means you only re-roll one miss. That's 50% of your CML shots, or 25% of your AC shots. I'd much rather make sure another krak missile gets through for the points cost;) But yeah, I'm running numbers to see what I can do for a 4xCML termie squad in a pod AND 3xAC termie in a squad for my 'ard boys list. Should have something up today Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2020736 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natanael Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share Posted June 13, 2009 Hey, OID, if you happen to get a casual game in or so, maybe you can try out the lone WGBL w/ CML? It would be great to get some feedback about how it actually works. Cheers! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2020754 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryzouken Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 In 4th the lone wolf Battle Leader was a great asset, able to contribute fairly withering fire without reprisal. In 5th, he's an easy kill point. But go ahead and try it. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2020837 Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunchb0x Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 apocolaypse of course but no end of fun Why would you only play that in apoc?? Play that in a normal bloody game!!! :) or my fav 3 assault cannons...all master crafted. :D OP : If you run the HQ, run him with a body guard...or some wolves. Theblem is it is far too expensive to play in normal games! How small of games do you play? in 1850 its perfectly fine, a shooting and hth monster...awesome price. ^_^ Plus...blood claws are cheap. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2020939 Share on other sites More sharing options...
WG Vrox Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 When my Raider is built, I plan to run my WGBL w/ a CML joined to a 6 or 7 man GH pack using the Raider as transport. Try moving the raider to provide cover for the pack and if return fire is to heavy load up and find a better spot. Plan to replace my RB with the LR, same concept just better Dakka and AV. These guys will usually protect my home/close objective or pour on the fire support for Annihilation Games. WG Vrox Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2020993 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hfran Morkai Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 apocolaypse of course but no end of fun Why would you only play that in apoc?? Play that in a normal bloody game!!! :) or my fav 3 assault cannons...all master crafted. :) OP : If you run the HQ, run him with a body guard...or some wolves. Theblem is it is far too expensive to play in normal games! How small of games do you play? in 1850 its perfectly fine, a shooting and hth monster...awesome price. ;) Plus...blood claws are cheap. Well I normally only play 1500 points and use mainly GH but the idea of using Blood Claws exclusively is interesting. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2021332 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Guard Nostromo Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I have a couple of WGBL in TDA who I usually run solo but for a pack of wolves. The first is a combat horror ('skullsplitter', the company champion) but the second, and more relevant here ;) has a CML and a frost blade. I use him kinda like a dreadnought, sort of close fire support, and he has performed well destroying alot of rhinos and dreadnoughts alongside holding his own in combat. If you want to use this kind of character, I would strongly advise giving him all four fenrisian wolves as it will greatly increase his survivability. Otherwise, minimalise his wargear to keep him as cheap as possible in case he does get heavily targeted. He can also be fairly amusing appearing out of a drop pod thus equipped... HOWEVER, I do sometimes feel a little dirty for using a SW character like this... He really should be more like his big brother with a thunder hammer/frost blade and angry disposition. We'll see what Russ thinks when we get to his famous hall! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2021578 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natanael Posted June 14, 2009 Author Share Posted June 14, 2009 That is great new, anyway! But my question being; why use him as close support? CML got 48" range, and I have to think that he will be killed more easily while close to the enemy. About feeling dirty, try to think of him as some kind of hero, a lone hero, who is so great he doesnt need a pack with him :lol: Or something else, I dont know :P Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2021804 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valerian Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Off topic: Can take on a tactical squad by himself, can kill light and cavalry tanks by himself, and can take sustained fire from almost any unit in the game without worry. Cavalry tanks? Wow, that term hasn't been used since pre-WWII. It was used in interwar British tank doctrine, but didn't last long, as experience quickly demonstrated that the doctrine didn't work well on the battlefield. On topic: Just me, but I wouldn't spend a whole lot of effort on the WGBL and CML, as this combo isn't likely to last past October. Valerian Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2022398 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Well some of those tanks made it through the end of WWII <_<. And the imperial gaurd caught hold of them when they built the hell hound chassi for instance. :). Ravagers and Falcons are another 40k example... *shrugs*. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2022556 Share on other sites More sharing options...
WG Vrox Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Just me, but I wouldn't spend a whole lot of effort on the WGBL and CML, as this combo isn't likely to last past October. Agreed, I think you will see a limit of 1 per pack, so they will still see some use, just not the 3 in a pack we can take now. WG Vrox. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2022574 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valerian Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Continued off-topic: I hope nobody minds too much, as the original question in this thread has been answered. Well some of those tanks made it through the end of WWII :D. Yes, many of the tanks themselves made it through the war, but the concept itself did not survive the war long. And the imperial gaurd caught hold of them when they built the hell hound chassi for instance. ;). Ravagers and Falcons are another 40k example... *shrugs*. I would be very interested to know what you think the definition of a cavalry tank is, if you believe that any of these three 40k armored vehicles are examples of one. If you prefer GM, we can take this to PM, but I figured some members of the Fang might be interested in a short tank discussion while we await the new codex. Valerian Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2023398 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 A cavalry tank is a light tank with moderate armament *though some carried relatively heavy guns in later years* that were designed to rapidly flank or break through enemy lines to hit vulnerable rear areas. A landspeeder could also be considered a cavalry tank to an extent... if it was a tank :lol:. All of those mentioned are fairly fast vehicles *compared to their parent armies* that are good at flanking and are well armed enough to take out static enemy positions in the backfield. The Falcon is also a "Gunboat" by common definition, but its place in the eldar army is that of a cavalry tank. The main reason the concept died was it was found that tanks supporting infantry didnt work nearly as well as infantry supporting tanks, and these tanks in particular were lightly armored and during the 20's and 30's were undergunned. Later models, mostly british, improved the armor and weaponry but were unable to provide solid results consistently due to the developement of man carried AT weapons and their waxing popularity with commanders. Atleast if I remember my history of war properly that is. Most of my knowledge of history ends in the last 40's and picks up again in the late 80's, with large gaps between 1860 and 1914 to be honest. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2024128 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valerian Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Grey Mage, Ah, very good. I appreciate your posting your vision/definition of the cavalry tank for me. You are using a more liberal interpretation than I am, which I will go on to explain below. [Real World] The tank, like the airplane, first saw use on the battlefield as a new weapon of war in WWI. Initially, the technology was extremely limited, and both systems offered few additional capabilities. However, the potential of the tank was obvious, and in the interwar period, noted British military theorists (such as B. H. Liddell Hart) began to develop doctrine for the integration and use of tanks in the British forces. What these men came up with was the idea that tanks would be to built perform two completely seperate and independent functions: First, the "infantry tank" would support the infantry in the attack. Because of its role on the battlefield, infantry tanks would be heavily armed and armored, to provide the utmost protection under heavy enemy fire and ability to provide significant support. The result of this would be a very slow tank (due to its load and weight), but this would not be an issue (theoretically), as dismounted infantry in the attack move extremely slowly anyway. The second tank, the "cavalry (or cruiser) tank" would provide a capability similar to the horse-based cavalry forces of old: they would operate in seperate units, independent of the main combat forces, to bypass the enemy front-lines and attack vulnerable elements "to the rear", such as enemy headquarters and supply trains. Thus, tank development in Britain was divided along two distinct branches, in both purpose and design, and in 1936 the British War Office designated two different kinds of tanks for future development: heavily armoured infantry tanks to be used in close co-operation with infantry during attacks, and fast mobile cruiser tanks designed to make forays deep into enemy territory. It is worth noting at this point that this doctrine was developed by the British and adopted by the French and Soviet Union; the doctrine was not adopted by either Germany, or the United States. Much of the U.S. doctrine for armored warfare was refined during the Louisiana Maneuvers of 1941. In practice the separation of tank functions into specialised areas such as infantry and cruiser types proved to be ineffective and inefficient. Invariably the cruisers ended up meeting enemy tanks in combat (and were also highly vulnerable to the many anti-tank weapons that were abundant on the WWII battlefield), while the infantry tanks were the only ones present when a breakthrough was accomplished. The cruiser/infantry tank idea faded as tank design progressed during the war. It was eventually replaced outright with the general acceptance of the universal tank idea (particularly as improving technology allowed for tanks with multifunctional capabilities). [/Real World] [40k] Based on the above discussion, I will now explain why I was surprised that you mentioned the Cyclone Missile Launcher being effective against cavalry tanks in your post above. First, labelling a tank as a "cavalry tank" is reliant upon one (or more) of the armies of the imaginary 40k universe, as having adopted the infantry/cruiser tank doctrine as developed by the British in the early 20th century. Having been a 40k player and hobbyist for 20 years, I have never seen any background material (or fluff) to indicate in any way that this is the case. I furthermore have never read anything to lead me to believe that any of the 40k armies have developed any tanks whose purpose is solely to operate independently of its other fighting forces to expoit penetrations of the enemy front-lines. Now, that being said, there is no doubt that several/many/most of the armies have developed fast, lightly armed, and lightly armored vehicles. Indeed, these vehicles are perhaps reminiscent of the cruiser tanks of old. However, those those attributes alone do not make such a vehicle equivilant to a cavalry tank. On to some of your examples; first all of us must admit that attempting to classify the futuristic science-fiction combat vehicles of Warhammer 40k according to a modern/contemporary classification system will be futile at best. However, in an attempt to jam some admittedly square pegs into round holes, there are some that will be better fits into those holes than others. 1. The Land Speeder (Space Marines) and Ravager (Dark Eldar): These fast skimmers are probably best classified as an attack gunship, like a modern attack helicopter (e.g. the AH-1 Cobra, or AH-64 Apache, or AC-130 Spectre). 2. The Falcon (Eldar): This fast, skimming, troop transport vehicle is somewhat more difficult as it combines qualities of a tank, a gunship, and an infantry fighting vehicle at the same time. Because, however, the purpose of the Falcon is to provide mobility for Eldar infantry on the battlefield, then support them once the infantry have deployed, this vehicle does not match up very well at all with the stated purpose of the old cavalry tank. 3. The Hellhound (Imperial Guard): This vehicle sports a turret-mounted Inferno Cannon, the purpose of which is drive enemy infantry from cover. This vehicle is yet another weapon system that is intended primarily to support the Imperial Guard infantry in the attack, and therefore the Hellhound should not be classified as a cavalry tank either. Certainly, any of these combat vehicles could be used in an exploitation mission, sent to penetrate or bypass the front-lines to attack vulnerable assets, positions, or formations in the enemy rear area. Likewise, the modern M1A1 SEP Abrams is equally well-suited for such a task. However, having this capability alone, is not enough to qualify the vehicle as a cavalry tank. Similarly, simply being a lightly armed, lightly armored, and highly mobile vehicle is not enough to qualify as a cavalry tank. Earning that label is all about doctrine, purpose, and design. [/40K] Best Regards, Valerian Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2024722 Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithGatchalian Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 He has to be in TDA to get a CML. I reccommend getting four fenrisian wolves, and then giving him a frostblade instead of the SS. But thats because I cannot conscience the idea of a terminator who doesnt ignore armor saves. It feels... moronic. WGBL: -TDA. -Frostblade. -CML- Mastercrafted. -2x Fenrisian Wolves. -Runic Charm. 170pts. Can take on a tactical squad by himself, can kill light and cavalry tanks by himself, and can take sustained fire from almost any unit in the game without worry. You can't mastercraft the CML, nor the assault cannon etc. Space Wolf Terminators cannot take mastercrafting as an option. Check the codex, there is no t next to the option. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2024879 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 He has to be in TDA to get a CML. I reccommend getting four fenrisian wolves, and then giving him a frostblade instead of the SS. But thats because I cannot conscience the idea of a terminator who doesnt ignore armor saves. It feels... moronic. WGBL: -TDA. -Frostblade. -CML- Mastercrafted. -2x Fenrisian Wolves. -Runic Charm. 170pts. Can take on a tactical squad by himself, can kill light and cavalry tanks by himself, and can take sustained fire from almost any unit in the game without worry. You can't mastercraft the CML, nor the assault cannon etc. Space Wolf Terminators cannot take mastercrafting as an option. Check the codex, there is no t next to the option. I can see that interpretation, my LGS and Gaming group ruled that its an amendment to the weapon not an option to itself.... and thus if the weapon that is master crafted has a T next to it it can be taken, as well as WGHWs that are taken with TDA. Valerian: I can see your point aswell. The reason I threw out those tanks as examples was because they are often used for flanking maneuvers and without infantry support. Id consider using the term "Fast" tank, however its already got 40k conotations. Ideas? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2024958 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valerian Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Valerian: I can see your point as well. The reason I threw out those tanks as examples was because they are often used for flanking maneuvers and without infantry support. Id consider using the term "Fast" tank, however its already got 40k conotations. Ideas? I'd just stick with the following: 170pts. Can take on a tactical squad by himself, can kill lightly-armored vehicles by himself, and can take sustained fire from almost any unit in the game without worry. This is absolutely a true and accurate assessment of a WGBL with the setup that you offered: WGBL:-TDA. -Frostblade. -CML- Mastercrafted. -2x Fenrisian Wolves. -Runic Charm. Regards, Valerian Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170927-wgbl-w-cml-all-alone/#findComment-2025617 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.