Re: [Epic] -Chaos- Tactic Critique

From: Mark A Shieh <SHODAN+_at_...>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 19:56:15 -0400 (EDT)

"Miller, Chris" <CMiller_at_...> writes:
> >> > If a LOB dies, his followers are vulnerable to morale checks.
> >> > If the Reaver dies it just blows up.
> >
> > Oh, come on. That's because you've taken mortal followers in
> >a Chaos army, not because it's a LoB. The only time mortal troops get
> >out of this one is if they're taken under a Marine Company, IIRC.
> >That's hardly the fault of the LoB.
>
> ----> That's something the LOB does and a Reaver doesn't. Also, you have
> to
> take at least 3 cards of followers for it, so it's going to apply every
> time you
> use the LOB. It _may_ not matter in that game but it will _never_ matter
> with the reaver. (we're not assigning "fault" we're comparing goods &
> bads
> of two different units. It's a minor negative.)

        The "at least 3 cards of followers" thing I've *never* seen to
be a hindrance. People tend not to like the GDs enough that they like
to load up on the little guys anyways. I rarely see a GD with fewer
than 4 minion cards, so having to take 3 cards of followers is hardly
a restriction.
        Also, I am assigning fault, because I consider it relevant.
The LoB has the follower morale vulnerability because it's a property
of the minions, not the LoB. I don't consider it a pro or con of the
LoB, because these minions can't be taken without the restriction,
while the LoB can be taken with lesser daemon followers to avoid the
restriction.
        Basically, I consider the morale check to be a weakness of the
mortal followers, not the LoB. Besides, Bloodletters are fun, and
Flesh Hounds actually understand the concept of moving faster than a
brisk stroll, unlike most of the non-mechanized Chaos army.

> >> > So how is the LOB better?
> >>
> >> I don't recall ever saying the the LoB *was* better...
> >[snip]
> >> I'd have to say the Reaver is better (better weapons,
> >> very flexible in its battlefield role), but the LoB is more
> >> fun.
> >
> > Nope, I heard lots of comments that the LoB was better than a
> >Bloodthirster or Angron, but that's not real hard. Also, in the
> >pre-TL days, the LoB was nice because it allowed you 3-5 minion cards,
> >unlike the Reaver, which ate up one of those slots. Taking a LoB
> >opens up a few options on how you can field an army, while the lone
> >Reaver just eats up support.
>
> -----> Reavers are Special Cards, not support cards - don;t take up one
> of the 3-5 slots - they're 1 per "company" card.

        Reavers are support cards here (well, minion cards). In the
army we're discussing (Chaos), there are no special cards. You can
take 3-5 Reavers per GD if you really wanted to. I consider it a lot
more relevant to compare elements of the same force, rather than
something like Space Marine Land Raiders vs. Blood Axe Land Raiders,
or a lone loyal Warlord vs. an identical Chaos Warlord w/ tail. Some
armies are just better at certain things.

        My SM/TL knowledge seems to be getting flaky these days, but
I'm pretty sure about what I claim for this posting.

Mark
Received on Tue Jul 29 1997 - 23:56:15 UTC