Sean Smith wrote:
> > ---------> Where are the IG getting those death rays? War engines?
>
> 200 points buys an Ordinatus with 3 death rays
Yup, and 3 BMs stops it dead. Still, if you're into war engines,
probably the 6-Deathstrike variant would be better.
I might add that in the last game that I used this force ( I made a
mistake BTW, delete 1 BW and one Boy), the opposition had a Squat
Cyclops. You know, the one with D3+3 Death Ray shots at one target?
None of the Battlefortesses were ever valid targets for it. And not
because of opponent's incompetence (he'd beaten me the previous 2 games)
but because I used terrain and the movement sequence well.
Assume 2 woods, 20 cm apart. The cyclops covers the gap. Your move is
15cm. How do you get past without being fired at? Simple: Normal Move 1:
Sit behind the wood. Firing 1 - you're behind cover. Assault move 1,
move 15cm. Normal Move 2, move 15cm and into cover.
The difficult bit was getting the MegaGargant in cover, but I managed
that until I was within 45cm.
Assume you're at 70 cm vs a 60 cm range firer who isn't moving (or has
moved). In the Normal move, you move 5cm to 65cm. Then in the assault
move, AFTER firing, you move 15cm to 50cm. Next move, move 15cm normal
move, and that range advantage is gone, you too can fire at 35cm, just
out of Gaze Of Gork range (rats!).
Vs, say, a 3-Death Ray Ordinatus, the 24 FP artillery that is carried by
the War Engines goes on overwatch ( no need for artillery), so gets 15
dice re-rolling misses. Should do SOME hits. Oh yes, and it does 3 BMs.
The accompanying Pulsa has a 3/4 chance of doing an additional 2. That's
5 SHW shots down.
Support is EVERYTHING. The artillery is particularly good against
anything good against war engines (except flyers). The War Engines are
good against anything good against the artillery. Combined arms is the
key.
> If
> > we're all taking 2000 points then you're taking WE to counter my WE's
> > and the points difference isn't much.
Correct. You get my point.
> > I think one of the advantages of the ork army is a relatively cheap
> > war engine with decent movement, assault values, firepower, _and_ the
> > ability to transport troops. Use 'em. As for IG infantry out-assaulting
> > orks, It's possible but I don't think it would be all that easy to
> > arrange.
>
> I don't have a problem in getting good assault values for IG, especially
> when support weapons and hellhounds are used to provide support in close
> combat.
Trouble is the hits you take on the way in. And the BMs, meaning you
have little chance of moving in the assault phase anayway.
> > What I would like to see from those who dislike this force is a 2000 pt
> > army you would take against it. It's easy to say "I would beat that
> > _unit_ with this unit" but try building a force which will stomp it as
> > easily as some say.
Yes, I'd be interested in seeing this.
> I can post you my 'ideal' version of an IG army to the list if you like.
> You then give your opinion how well it would do against your army.
"Your army?" This one's mine :)
But I really would be interested. Maybe we can each play a game vs a
good local opponent, and compare notes.
Anyway, I'll take the rest of the comments as if they were addressed to
me.
> Note my 'ideal' IG army was designed to deal with all comers, not
> specifically Ork army. I however still think it would do very well
> against the army you posted. I also have an 'ideal' 2000 point Ork army,
> if you wish me to post that as well.
Yes please to both. Is this "War Engine + Supports" an optimal army for
general purpose use? Probably not. Depends on your mix of opponents. But
I have evidence to show that when handled correctly, it works very well
indeed. It requires good use of cover, and even more importantly, close
co-ordination of the artillery and war engines.
For example, I used a variant of the same army against an Imp+LR force,
and got comprehensively beaten, simply because at the time the Imp was
shieldless and down to 5 hits, my 24 FP artillery was 5cm out of range
(on overwatch, that would be on average 8+ hits....).
> Finally, please don't take any comments I have made personally.
No worries, they were taken in the spirit they were given! As for my
ripostes, I wanted to show how in practice (as opposed to theory) things
could be different. Basically my reply was in the same spirit. I
apologise if I came across as a little prickly. Frankly I don't see how
anyone could possibly be offended your constructive criticism, the
thought of being offended literally never crossed my mind. Anyway,
enough of the treading on egggshells bit, back on to the throwing of
brickbats :)
> Believe it or not, my comments are intended to be helpful by
> pointing weaknesses in your army that you may have not recognised.
For which you have my gratitude. My opponents don't possess much in the
way of bulk Shadowswords or Ordinati, so any extensive experience you
have with them that you relay to me can only be to the good. I _think_ I
have the answers, but over to you.
BTW the aforementioned battle was not fought on a board completely
covered with terrain, far from it. I might just make a JPEG of it to
show you.
--
aebrain_at_... <> <> How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain| xxxxx Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia | xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
abrain_at_... o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo oo oo oo
By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale
Received on Tue Mar 24 1998 - 10:52:40 UTC