> > > Trolls and minotaurs are only 'cheap' compared to
> > >beastmen, which are overpriced IMHO. Tarantulas are worth
Rare that you can get 10 units for 250 points with 5 CAF (or is it 9
and 1 with 4.........) Not including Ogryns (which are also bargain basement
stuff) what else is there that matches them in CC for the price? Termies are
way too expensive (although charging a FF termie is probably worse than charging
a troll - but heck my main problem is clearing them off objectives (a more
relevant point later).Howling banshees lose their scream (gotta love the 6+
save :) ) and the extra 1 caf is probably outmatched by the extra numbers
and (in the trolls case) regeneration. The trolls also cough up 1 fewer VPs
than 2 dets of CC dudesa and only take up one support card as opposed to 2
(ok though this means they cant be in 2 places at once........). I guess
using chaos cards in conjunction with these units has been the worst problem -
the cards having the net effect of being everywhere up until they are used (ie
no matter who goes into CC and against which unit the cards have the potential
to be there. In this case having one large unit is great cos all of it gets
the bonus from the unit- affecting cards.
Re the beastmen - compared to trolls + minotaurs either the beastmen are overpriced or the trolls are underpriced. Thats one major problem - what
do you consider the 'correctly priced' unit to be?...(ie what do you
compare things to in point values?)
> > >exactly 100 pts as far as I'm concerned, they rarely do
> > >much of anything the times I've used them. The squats aren't
You dont have to do much to be worth 100 (and 1VP) . Theyre great for
denying use of open ground (too many shots to ignore , yet are too cheap
to have to waste units on killing). Forcing people into cover is great for
chaos - it lets their CC troops get so much closer..
> > >bad but they're not exactly a steal, either. The Thawk is
Never said they were bargain basement material but are good for the
> > >definitely underpriced, but marines get them as easily as
> > >chaos... and while chaos titans get a free +2 CAF and can
I think chaos can make more use out of the Thawks - ive seen too
many ork clans (not mine - phew) wasted by one thawk full of marines
dropping in and using either buring bodies or the Nurgle reward - something that
can be stopped but probably is going to cost a lot more to prevent than it costs
to do........Once again chaos cards probably means 1 Thawk full of chaos
marines has more destructive potential that one of regular marines.
> > >use the energy whip, I haven't seen a single titan fielded
> > >since TL came out, so you're comparing a 900 point chaos
> > >warlord to a 500 point imperial one (or a 500 point chaos
> > >reaver to a 333 point imperial one).
> > >
I think thats more an indictment on the battlegroups than anything else
. I think it was AC that wanter mre titans - but not making them only dirt
cheap but adding the objectives as well was overkill. I think the BG's
deserved some cost break but not to the extent where single titans
become a bad thing to buy.
> What do you mean here? You think that Tyranids have an unbalanced army
> list? I'd have to disagree -- some individual units can be cheesy, but that
> can be said of any army. Overall I've found the Tyranids to be a pretty well
> balanced army. Plus, the fact that they can't take allies and have a relatively
> small army list means you get bored with them that much quicker.
Ok problem caused by personal beliefs 1 - i HATE allies. Whats the
point of playing an army if it doesnt flavour your game. I hate the army
which one day is 2000pt Eldar 2000pt Space marines Eldar Army and the next day
is the same army but its space marines.......Kind of sucky when effectively
it means you can just pull in anything you need to fill gaps (anyone ever seen
an eldar player who had one marine company in thawks? - usually scouts id
> > Personally the only thing that keeps Chaos slightly below the rest is the
> > fact that they can't get the BG's. I think that Chaos are actually one of
Ok here we have the major problem - BGs are the main difference btw
chaos being pretty good and a little below average. Ive been stuck with a
group that dislikes the bargain value of BGs on a good day - and usually
plays without the titan objectives (and where possible without the BGs...)
I guess this wouldnt be the first example of someone having unique
problems because of house rulings.
> not worth the amount of VP they give up. Nevertheless, I do find it annoying
> that Chaos can't officially take battlegroups, since it goes against the game
> history and since I'd like to be able to take Titans occasionally (other than
> the LoB) and single Titans aren't even close to worth it.- you bet :(
Heck i think chaos not being able to take BGs when the other army
can IS what evens it out......
> > I think he mentioned earlier in the message that the guy using Chaos was a
> > pretty good player, and I think that makes far more difference overall then
> > pure army type selection.
It makes some difference - as does a willingness to concentrate only
on certain units (often coming close to what would be termed 'degenerate'
in CCG's....). Maybe its something about the house rules here (theres a few
and we only play WYSIWYG to a limited extent (ie we like it but dont worry
if theres a few proxy models used) but chaos is on a pretty good run. The chaos
player probably runs on a 75-80% win percentage - however we play 'reversal'
matches where we swap armies frequently. In these games he has only won about
30-40%. So its not that he's playing an army he's not used to (the other
player has the same problem) but it seems that chaos - seems to do really well
here.(note that this means he's still doing pretty well considering - ie better
than most of us :) )aBasically its both the army AND the player is what im
trying to get at..........combine them both and OWWWWW.
thanks for the comments
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:04 UTC