Re: [Epic] Overwatch and Some Random Comments

From: John Chapman <john_at_...>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:57:27 +1100 (EST)

> * Close combat is not god in E40k (as I stated a few months ago
> following my first few games) - overwatch is the one true god of the
> game. Getting to reroll the dice is just too much, especially when it
> comes to ATs, Disrupts, any artillery, and FP against high-armor
> targets. I'm not sure what could be done about it, but it should
> definitely be toned down somehow (IMO).
        Im inclined to agree with the general sentiment ESPECIALLY with respect
to artillery (made the mistake of getting some engines of vaul within 90 of
some IG hvy artillery once (ok 2 were able to fit under a template)) OW combined
 with a 5+ to hit meant that of 3 engines , 1 was left with 1 remaining point of
 damage capacity. And that was with average rolling). The cant run cant hide
(what with the range of that stuff) thing is pretty harsh.However , that said,
the relatively short ranges of guns compared to the movement of many units
leads to the situation of fast units like Swooping Hawks and Bloodthirsters etc
being able to charge from outside gun range (or at least from within cover).
If you dont get a shot in , OW doesnt help much.....

> * War engines continue to not impress me. This is, I think, somewhat
> related to the above point since WEs can't have OW orders and thus
> trying to utilize them as FP platforms doesn't work when you're facing
> high armor values (like tanks or marines). The only good use of WEs
        And also the engines fire last. Good in the case of Vaul engines
popping up , bad otherwise. Most armies have units such as Land Raiders ,
support platforms or Fire Prisms etc which provide much more in the way of raw
firepower than most war engines.
>
> * Spending points on ground attack air power is a waste. Take enough
> interceptors to cover your butt and spend the rest on ground troops.
> Air power in general doesn't get enough time on the board to justify
> bringing anything more.
        Hmmmmmm take enough interceptors to cover your bombers and then pick
your target every second turn. Ok bombers are only there for say 2 turns in most
 games but they can usually get where its needed. POint for point they usually
pack more firepower than most ground units (makes up for their infrequent
appearance a bit) and also (if youre not playing the flyer rules in the WD)
they are a very hard unit to get VPs out of. Driving them off is easy - killing
say 3+ out of 5 isnt so easy when a lot of the time they will get driven off
rather than killed.
        A couple of big ground attacks on a target unit (which is then finished
off by ground troops) will cause casualties and rack up blast markers quickly...

>
> * Large detachment of termies and LRs, on overwatch, with no nearby
> cover for assault detachments to sneak through. With the termies
> in the front to absorb hits (damn Save ability). Not a pleasant sight.
> The only good answer to this is: make it come to you, and pound it
> with as many 60cm+ weapons as you can muster. Too bad that's not what
     Ummm how bout you try using some anti tank shots on them. Dont SHWs like
AT shot let you choose the Land Raiders over the termies? (Or have we been
playing it wrong?).

> I did... I foolishly thought I could take something like this on, and
> watched half my army get grounded into chuck as a result. Very
> painful. Erik, you really should nickname that detachment the "Meat
> Grinder" - but don't think my bezerkers and daemons are going to
> charge headlong into it next time around...
        I dont know. Charge in some Bloodthirsters. Rampage means youll kill
what you assault. 10 Assault means , with a maximum of 2 units ganging up on
you its damn near impossible for many armies to actually have a higher
assault value. You have save too, youll charge further than they shoot. Even
if you lose the CC (and your thirsters) you still have a good chance of
killing stuff.....Ive always wondered who come out on top of the Thirster/LR
match up - Id favour the Bloodthirsters - maybe Im wrong.
                                                just some opinions
                                                        JAC
                                                        
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC