Re: [Epic] 2000pt 'ideal' IG Army

From: Scott Shupe <shupes_at_...>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 15:41:25 -0500

Aaron wrote:
> > Maybe I didn't make myself clear, the hellhound detachment is suppost to
> > support of detachments, as the diagram below demonstrates.
> >
> > O O O O
> >
> > C C H C
> > IG IG H IG
> > SW SW H SW
> > SW SW H SW
> > SW SW H SW
> > H H H
> >
> > O = ork
> > IG = normal IG
> > C = Commssar
> > SW = Support Weapon
> > H = Hellhound
> >
> I got burned once, because you can't support unless some of your units
> are touched, I had a bunch of HH just sitting there, watching their
> buddies die. A clever (or cheesy) opponent can screw you by charging
> your flanks. Besides, I saved 25 points buy joining them anyway.

        The thing is if the Ork player decides to not engage the
hellhounds in his assault, they'll be within FF range after the
guardsmen are driven off (a FF that the orks will almost definitely
lose). This could be very bad for the orks if you have a mobile
reserve nearby that can either surround or simply beat on the
broken greenskins (broken units are at 1/2 assault factor & FP for
CCs and FFs, IIRC).

        Also note that with the above setup, the orks HAVE to
engage at least 1 Hellhound in order to get into base contact
with non-Comissar (non-Save) units. Assuming the orks charge
from the front; if they hit your flanks then that's no longer the
case. Perhaps a T formation for the hellhounds would be better:

        C C H C C
        IG IG H IG IG
        H H H H H

etc, you get the idea.

Scott Shupe
shupes_at_... [email protected]
"Who's laughing now?" - Evil Dead II
Received on Thu Mar 12 1998 - 20:41:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:10:28 UTC