Re: [Epic] Detachment sizes

From: Thane Morgan <thane_at_...>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 22:35:38 -0700

anvil_at_... wrote:
>
> L. Brian Hayes wrote:
> >
> > Just a question on some strategy...
> > Is it better to have larger detachments where you can get a high firepower
> > when it's time to shot or is it better to use smaller detachments so the
> > enemy has to distribute it's firepower(blast markers) between several
> > detachments?
> > I have one detachment that I've become pretty fond of because it causes so
> > much pain to my enemies. It has 10 LR's (1 is the commander) and 5
> > Vindicators for soak up. I usually try to maneuver this det into a position
> > where I can set them in overwatch and just decimate a enemy detachment.
> > Blast markers sometimes make this det not as good as I'd like it to be.
> > I'm basically wondering what is everyone's thoughts on this.
> >
> > "The Riverman" aka. L. Brian Hayes
> > haysbo_at_"nospam"net-serv.com
> > "What? The rivers up. Sure, I'll run it!"
> > "Have Canoe, Will Travel"
> > To Reply take out the "nospam"
> >
> > Name: WINMAIL.DAT
> > Part 1.2 Type: unspecified type (application/octet-stream)
> > Encoding: x-uuencode
>
> I just got home from a 5000pt game where my opponent had 48!!! land
> raiders. I was initially intimidated but managed to overcome this. By
> keeping outside his range or line of sight we wittled down those LR's
> with war engines (something he didn't have). From my point of view, and
> my partners, huge LR detachments can be really cheesey. (sorry RBS). It
> could just be me, but I hope not, I get no real satisfaction from
> winning a battle by using only "the best" an army has to offer. There is
> just no chance for the little guy (the lone tac stand) to rise up and do
> something heroic, if he's overshadowed by "monster tanks". If your
> approach to this game is "win at all costs" then it's going to be hard
> to find people to play. Isn't playing a game supposed to be fun?
>
> anvil

I've got mixed feelings on the subject. GW wargames traditionally are
~1/3 played before the game even starts, as players build their armies.
The old Epic was largely an exception to this; almost any
army combination could win, except for the all titan armies (even those
could win if the player was light on bikes or thunderhawk deployed space
marines). Thats one of the reasons I liked the old Epic better, and why
I dislike Fantasy somewhat and despise 40K.

A games rules should be balanced enough to allow any equal point army to
beat any other, if well led. If you have to intentionally lobotomize
yourself while building an army to play a good game, then there is
probably something wrong with the army building rules. Anyone who
watched the evolution of Warzone into Chronopia can see a company that
learned this the hard way. I don't think GW has learned it yet.

I think The LR horde can be beat, but I haven't had to do it yet. Most
big LR detats are vulnerable to close assault, as people tend to be
stingy on the infantry to defend them(else end up with 500-700 point
units). Jump pack assault troops, calvary and bikes which can hide
during firing and then get a long charge should be able to hurt a big LR
company. Even If you technically lose the fight, so long as an LR dies
for every 2 of your units, you're probably going to come out ahead on
the points. Try to get multiple psykers on your side; that's one of the
easiest ways to get die roll bonuses against the big LR detats.

The other big thing to avoid is walking out in front of the LR detat on
overwatch. Just stay out of its way, make it come to you so it won't be
on overwatch. They're still ugly, but managable in such circumstances. A
lot of players make the mistake of thinking they must advance, advance,
advance. Be patient. Make LR's come to you. Set up traps. Nothing is
more frustrating than having a 500 point unit which has no one to fire
at; many times you can get your opponent to make a stupid move with
such a detat.

Thane
Received on Mon Jan 26 1998 - 05:35:38 UTC