Perhaps the solution to this use of Disrupts is very simple. Never mind converting
them to hits after a certain point or working out ways of having them removed quicker,
just don't count BMs against morale unless the detachment reached half-strength or is
destroyed. After all, why would an army give up and leave the field because the
artillery fire was too "disrupting." They didn't in WW1, more's the pity.
I don't think allowing Tyranid's large Biovore detachments is cheesy. Giving the
Tyranid the ability to lay down supression fire is exactly what they need to support
the carnifex, genestealers and hormagaunts who individually carry so little
firepower. It also fits the "genre" as Tyranid would breed a specialist animal to do
the job.
A#
Petri Heiramo wrote:
> > > It is possible with the Tyranid to have an artillery swarm with an amazing 20
> > > Biovores. This would inflict at a range of 60cm a likely 12 BMs every time it
> > > fired (2BMs plus 50% hits on average at 4+ of the 20 Biovores firing). This
> > > is likely to suppress most activity while the genestealers run over and start
> > > eating. In addition it will take 11 hits (or BMs) before they lose the
> > > automatic 2 BMs just for firing. Pretty good, huh.
> >
> > Forget the eating. On turn 1 you lay down 12 blast markers on a detachment.
> > Even if they get lucky and remove 5, that's 7 down from their morale.
> > On turn two you put those babies on overwatch and lay down an amazing
> > average of 17 more blast markers. Even if they get lucky and remove 5
> > again, that's still 19 more off of their morale (26 total, probably about
> > half of their total morale) and the target detachment probably got to
> > do absolutely nothing on turn two. On turn three the game may very well
> > end even if you haven't killen any of the enemy.
>
> The above is the reason why I don't like to take too many Disrupt
> weapons in my armies. I think they, when used in such vast quantities, are
> really cheesy. One gaming group had a house rule which limited the morale
> loss to 3 per detachment from BM's and I thought it a good rule. And I
> don't think I'm biased in my opinion as I play Eldar which largely depend
> on their Nightspinners.
>
> > Keep in mind that the above assumes only average rolling for the disrupt
> > weapons while granting the defender superb luck. In practice the results
> > should prove even more devastating.
>
> I could think of nothing more boring than winning by heaping BM's
> on opponent.
>
> > > In one detachment I could cram 5 Night Spinners as support to 5 Eldar
> > > stands likely in three Waveserpents.
> >
> > Forget the Wave Serpents. 5 Scouts will keep up nicely with the Nightspinners
> > quite nicley on turn one, and even end up out front to take any casualties
> > from incoming arty fire.
>
> That is very true. So far the best and cheapest 'Spinner
> detachment I've come up with. If I expect enemy aerial units, I replace
> one 'Spinner with a Fireprism.
>
> Jours, Petri
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Petri Heiramo (heiramo_at_...), Lokinkuja 56, 45100 KOUVOLA, 05-3810177
> 45 Dillwyn Road, Sketty, Swansea SA2 9AH, UK, +44-1792-527 245
> I have a web page, therefore I am. http://www.lut.fi/~heiramo/
Received on Sat Sep 26 1998 - 07:46:24 UTC