Re: [Epic] Psychic Phase [was: Re: Titan Legions]

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 14:05:15 -0500 (EST)

>> yes squat bikes are better than IG bikes,
>Actually, squat bikes are better than everyone elses bikes...

Hah! I'll take my KOS any day. For the same price as a guild, I can field
18 stands of various crappy vehicles and 10 stands of nobz bikes (+5 CAF,
2 dice 5+, never check morale). One-on-one the squats are, arguably,
better overall (CAF and morale), but the orks have heavy advantages:
the only units of any importance are the nobz, and I can almost assure
they will be the last to die. Aslo, my KOS has far more firepower than
the squat unit, and the command unit status means I can use it more
effectively (I will move farther and shoot sooner than trikes). On top
of that, the unit I described would have a break of 16, meaning when the
unit finally does break it will have mostly nobz left (probobly 6-8 out
of the 12 survivors), so morale won't be a particular problem even
after the unit breaks.

>>> That's CHEAPER _and_ HARDER HITTING. And, yeah, that's cheesy...
>>Again, that's sad... 1 SHOT, just ONE for 150pts per round.... even though
>>it's hard hitting they rarely do enough damage to justify their points.
>Well that's a damn shame, because everyone else's artillery is even worse.

I don't know, 600 pts of goliaths gets you 4 barrages hitting on about a
3+ ignoring terrain with a -3 save mod. An IG arty company gives you 4
barrages at 4+ with a -2 and one at 2+ with a -3. Also, the IG give up
6 VP with the loss of 6 units, while the squats give up 7 VP with the loss
of 3. Also, every lost goliath is a lost barrage, whicle the IG arty
keeps firing until the detatchment is wiped out (albiet with less
effectiveness). It all seems to even out to me.

>No, I don't think I would list "Titans" under the Space Marines assets.
>Space Marines can't buy Titan Battle Groups and 900 pts for a Warlord is a
>bit steep IMO. Maybe a Reaver is worth 500 pts since it is about the only
>way SM's can buy artillery, but I would have to be designing a very general
>purpose army before I would include one...

Marine armys can have battle groups in them. It's creating a strawman
to say that lack of battle groups is a problem for the marines. It would
be like a squat player saying "I never field any SHVs. The squats suck".
If a player simply refuses to field a unit out of principle, thats
their choice, and does not reflect on the balance of the game.

I've played about 1/3 of my games against squats, and I've played several
games with them (using friends minis). At first I considered them powerful,
but after a few games, I realized they were no better than any other army.
The crux of the argument seems to be the squats get more firepower
for the points. This is true in the case of the SHVs, but not their
other units. Nore are their units more durable when you consider their
cost and VPs.

For example. Take a colossus and KOS. They are similar in price and
give up the same number of VPs. It will, on average, take 9 hits to
destroy the collosus in a single turn (assuming an average -2 save
mod on the final shots). The KOS breaks after 8 hits and you don't
need any save mods to get them (if you don't have any, it will take
9 hits on average). However, when the collosus is dead, all thats
left is a gyrocoptor. When the KOS breaks, it has 7 units left, most
of whom are nobz bikes. So it keeps on fighting after it has given
up it's VP. Which is better? If you sit them out on an open field
and let them blast away at each other, the collosus would probobly
win more thatn it lost. But that is not how the game is played.
I'm not going by getting into a shoot out with squats, because, yes,
the squats throw more dice for the money. I will win by playing
to the stregnths of my army (command units) and by setting the
tempo of the game (I want the game to become a bloody free-for-all).
Victory goes not to the player who does better math, it goes to the
player who forces his style of play on the opponent. In this, the
Squats have no special advantage.

Received on Wed Jan 22 1997 - 19:05:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:02 UTC