Thursday, March 10, 2011


So as a short teaser for next week.  My order for starting a Haley theme list was delivered only 2 days after I ordered it (Completely unexpected, but very happy about it).  Yay for 16 Long Gunners + UA!

No way I am going to get it all put together, but I do plan to consider strategy over the weekend.

Here's my initial list.  The intent is Tier 2 since I do not see as much value in Tier 3 until I have a huge unit of Swords Knights to advance deploy.  I'll make an extended post about it next week.

  • Captain Victoria Haley
    • Lancer
    • Hunter
    • Charger
  • Long Gunner Infantry (min)
  • Long Gunner Infantry (min)
  • Long Gunner UA
  • Sword Knights (min)

Feel free to provide suggestions.  Also, I'd like input on what jacks should be marshalled to Sword Knights going forward.  Should I wait until 50 points to move to Tier 3 (and Tier 4) or is a lower point total appropriate?


  1. Looks pretty good for a start!

    Long Gunners + Temporal Barrier was the worst thing ever for me in MkI, I can't imagine it's that much easier to deal with in MkII. Gag.

    For Sword Knights, I'd recommend something with reach- you'll want to take the most advantage you can out of flank. Of course, given the restrictions for Haley's theme force, that's pretty limiting, but it's certainly worth trying (maybe a Firefly? I don't think I've ever seen it used).

    Advance Deployment + Pathfinder is pretty fantastic, so I don't think it'd be a bad idea to do it early. Really though, you're going to have a tough time getting the Hunter and the JM'd jack (keeping the core you have) in at 35 points, so it's probably fine to wait :). Tier 3 is probably easily doable at 35, however, and would probably be worth it.

  2. tl;dr: Firewhat? Take more Lancers, put Hunters in the advance deploy with knights. ;)

    A word of caution on my analysis below. I have not played any games with a Firefly so I am just making observations strictly on the raw numbers.

    A Firefly? While its relatively pointless to JM a Lancer, I had come to the conclusion that it's not necessary that the model JM'd be the one sticking around them with reach.

    I had actually been considering putting a Hunter on the JM. I mean so it will 'waste' the fact that the Hunter could already advance deploy, but here's my argument for doing it. When I play a Hunter in a battle group I have only ever been assigning two focus when I feel like it can get a really good shot that I want to make count (to boost attack and damage). I feel like the Hunter pairs perfectly with the Pronto drive. Pronto can be used to move him for the turn and then he can still forfeit movement for the +2 on ranged attack roll and then still have the JM to boost his damage roll. He is effectively only slightly worse than if he had been in the casters battle group. I don't see the limit that he stay within CMD (so 9 inches) of the JM as being a difficult. What do you think?

    Also, what's your take on the Firefly v Lancer issue? So if you only have room for 5 points then the choice is obvious; however, that 1 point difference aside for the moment, the differences are effectively comparing the ranged attacked versus being an arc node. The minor differences are that the Firefly has slightly higher P+S on the reach weapon, but the Lancer is more defensive (more boxes and ARM with the shield) and has an extra initial attack (not to mention the bonuses against other jacks). An interesting fact is that using the Lancer for combat does not necessarily restrict channeling. A channel can be in melee they just cannot be engaged. I don't yet know how realistic it is to rely on this, but it is something I have thought about.

    The Firefly's ranged attack makes him particularly effective against infantry, but the Haley's Chain Lightning coming from a Lancer is even more so. To say nothing of the mass of Long Gunners. The Lancer survives considerably better than the Firefly and when the Sword Knights get in the thick of things I cannot help but that that that is what is going to matter more.

    By all means though do not take this as a rejection of your suggestion. In fact, I welcome you to convince me to reconsider my evaluation thus far because chances are I am missing an entire prospective that you have on the matter.