Miller, Chris wrote:
>
> This has come up in another thread, but I thought it was worth
> describing separately:
>
> What units did you buy (or not buy) in SM/TL because they just sucked
> and weren't worth the time,money, or points to take, which are now
> decent or better in E40K. Also, units which were great before and are
> now trash - what will never come off the shelf again?
>
> So far, Nurgle Engines have come up - much better now, also those
> Slaanesh things, which I thought looked really goofy regardless of
> stats.
Performance-wise, though, the Slaanesh knights haven't
changed much. They're good but not amazing in both versions.
> Tzeentch flamers are much improved as well, stat-wise.
To continue with the Chaos bit, Firelords and Silver
Towers have actually become buy-able units. In SM they were
probably the worst units in the Chaos army.
I would say that Plague Towers are no where near as
good as they are in SM, but I think I'm the only person who
liked them in the first place... =)
The Banelord has become less durable, along with all
the other GDs (as I believe Thane already pointed out). I
had one destroyed in yesterday's game by a single hit from a
falcon! Khorne was very insulted, especially when I failed
to take the gunner's skull for his collection. =(
> Eldar D-cannons are quite a bit more popular now as well.
>
> I'd have to nominate Leman Russ tanks as one of the bigger steps up -
> from mediocre to great.
Lemans' weren't mediocre in SM, they were downright
useless thanks to much better alternatives (Pred & LR comps).
Now they're useful, although I don't know if I'd classify
them as 'great'. LRs, on the other hand, went from being
good to amazingly great.
Thane also mentioned bikes... They pretty much get
my vote as most changed unit. In SM/TL, cheap bike companies
ruled the battlefield - they had a high CAF and the numbers
to take down just about anything, to the point where high-
priced models had to be left at home or rigorously guarded
to prevent them from being mobbed in CC. Now bikes work
much more like I think they should - a fast recon unit that's
good for harrying flanks but not for direct assaults.
> On the down side, my dire avengers seem to have no home at all, nor my
> fire dragons.
Bombards have lost the ability to punch through
heavy armor, which is a real shame. I was thinking about
this sort of thing after a few games with Erik yesterday.
In our first game, I fielded my all-cultist army against
his bike-less & near aspect-less eldar army. My contagions
spent the entire game suppressing the heck out of his WEs
and vehicles. And that's just not right.
Contagions supposedly fling around dead bodies and
other magical disease-infected nastiness. In SM/TL, they
were pretty much only capable of killing infantry, and any
infantry killed had a chance of spreading the plague to
other units in the nearby area. Presumably this is where
the Disrupt ability comes from, as the targets have to
either take cover or work their way around the spots that
have become infested. Fine. So why does this work against
armor and titans in E40k? It shouldn't. But in E40k,
there's no real distinction of whether or not a weapon
packs enough punch to be useful against armored targets
(seperate from the weapon itself, that is - obviously ATs
and DRs are anti-armor, but should all Disrupt weapons, for
example, be equally effective against all kinds of targets?).
Bombard shells should be able to crack open a titan without
much trouble; manticore rockets should not - and yet their
stats are the same in E40k (and neither of them are good
against titans or WEs).
I'm not sure where I'm really going with all of
this, it just bothered me somewhat when I started to think
about how I was using my Contagions yesterday.
Scott Shupe
shupes_at_... shupes@...
http://www.rpi.edu/~shupes
***********************************************************************
"Don't you laugh, damn you, don't you laugh!" - Clockwork Orange
Received on Mon Feb 16 1998 - 22:05:22 UTC