Michael the Liu wrote:
>Okay Temp, you seem so annoyed that I just can't resist a chance to defend
>Renaud a bit. :)
Well... I didn't expect such a brutal answer from Temp and next time I'll
think twice before posting any opinion concerning tactics. Anyway, thank
you Michael for defending me. Indeed, Temp's answers were often based on
misinterpretations of what I wrote (because my English is so bad?). Others
effectively translate very different understanding and/or approaches of the
game. To me, this could be explained by the simple fact that we play the
game at different scales: 5/6000 pts for him, 10/15000 pts for us (me and
my regular opponents).
But now, I've to answer in a more detailed way. So, let's go. This post is
gonna be very long, I'm sorry, I'll never do it again.
>>>even Guardians are useful
>>>for protecting your rear units from Thawks, biospores and the like.
>
>>Don't pretend. Guardians are worthless. They cost 25 points/stand, which
>>is the same as Dire Avengers. They take slightly longer to break, and give
>>up more VPs (6 vs 4 if bought as individual detachments, and 5 vs 4 if
>>bought as a host). Give me 16 DA stands and a Prism cannon vs 18 guardian
>>stands any day.
>
>Though I guess I won't be defending him in this particular instance. Temp
>is right, guardians are worthless.
Of course they are expensive and do not match their points value. Did I say
anything else? I just said "EVEN the Guardians...", in case you have them
in your army (it's difficult not to take some of them, you know) and don't
know what to do with them. I could have told you about Guardians being too
expensive and proposed other uses forthem without giving VP's to your
opponent, but I didn't speak about that, since it was not the point (and I
guess you're perfectly aware of that kind of things).
Wow! No sarcastic remark about the first three advices (except about the
Guardians, of course)? You're too kind, Temp.
>>>4- Eldar Titans are useless. Don't bother taking any in your army. Even
>>>with two Pulsar Cannons, the only hope you could have is gaining initiative
>>>and fire it once. 10 secons later, it will be reduced to ashes by barrage
>>>templates.
>
>>What do you never play Orks or Chaos? I'm the first person to talk about
>>how much Eldar titans suck against IG and Squats, but they work fine against
>>Orks and Chaos. Warlock titans can be nice since they can use a psy-lance
>>vs. chaos and their mind shout power vs. Orks.
Chaos definitely _can_ field sufficient barrage templates to take your
titans down the same way as IG or Squats. concerning "the legend of the psy
lance", any Chaos player with a brain will never allow a Titan with this
weapon to come close to his units. And don't tell me he has nothing firing
at long range: he has if he takes SM/IG with him (and he would be crazy
fighting against the Eldars without 49,9% of imperial troops). This is not
based on assumptions but simply on gaming experience: I played my first
games three years ago against Chaos (and still play against them):
1. A titan with a psy lance _never_ shot anything with that _short-ranged_
weapon before being killed.
2. The more IG my opponent had, the more the game was difficult for me. No
exception.
Concerning the Orks, noboby in my group felt crazy enough to take them
(tactics? which tactics?), so, you're right, I've never played against the
Orks.
>I personally use the Eldar Titans against Space Marine, Titan Legions,
>Orks, Chaos and Tyranids. However, it might be worth noting that my group
>doesn't consider dual pulsar/dual wing laser to be cheesy.
Well... I'll stick to the (simple) idea that 600 or 750 pts for going down
immediately are too much.
>>>Exception: Revenants are just fantastic units! They can hide
>>>behind buildings and their Pulsars are very powerful. I've always 2 or 4 of
>>>them (depending on the points of the game) in my army.
>
>>While I think they are useful, they are also pretty easy to take down. Any
>>of the barrages you mentioned will eat them even quicker, and even two bikes
>>at +3 caf have a shot at winning in cc, three is virtually a guarantee.
You didn't understand what I meant: They can _hide_ and the other titans
can't. So, their life expectancy is really higher: most indirect barrages
deviate. But I admit this is not a guarantee: my regular opponents are now
so afraid of my Revenants that they consider them as "primary targets" in
most games (and "spend" many barrage templates taking them down - not so
bad).
And if you move your Revenants in range of charging CC enemy units, well...
this is what we call in French "erreur de jeu" (a bad mistake from a
player) or simply faulty distance estimation. What can I say?
>Yeah, but I like them anyways. They're cheap enough that on their own they
>can mount a strong assault against a particular objective that isn't too
>heavily guarded, and probably come out on top. Though I probably wouldn't
>use them against any of the armies I didn't previously list. Besides, the
>little buggers are so darn cute!
That's right, Michael. And I always use them as part of I call an "assault
battle group" (more or less the use you're talking about, I think).
>>>5- Carefully plan your shooting phase: unless very special circumstances,
>>>always fire your Doomweavers first (no LOS required if you've flyers), then
>>>your "direct fire" troops and shoot your pop-up units last... Your opponent
>>>will then have few units to fire back at your popping-up vehicles.
>
>>Always fire doomweavers first? Why? Fire them when it is most
>>advantageous. Most of the time the enemy does not have direct line of sight
>>to your doomweavers, so they can safely delay. On the other hand your dark
>>reapers (for example) need line of sight, so if you let the other guy shoot
>>at them before you get to fire them, then you have lost firepower. Maybe
>>you are assuming that doomweavers can force his units to delay some of their
>>first fire, but that is far from being a certainty, especially considering
>>the automatic scatter.
Here, I must say the answer of Michael was, IMHO, perfect. I quote:
>Dark Reapers? I never take those guys. They're a terrible deal! Each one
>of them costs more than a prism cannon, yet somehow is still much less
>effective than one I've found. I have a hard time justyifying spending 250
>points for 4 dinky little stands unless those stands are Exarchs.
>
>But back to what the gist of your paragraph was on, in this case I tend to
>agree with both of you. First I try to fire off all of my vulnerable
>units, but if I have a chance of nailing enemy artie with my doomweavers,
>that could save my vulnerable units from dying at all, as opposed to firing
>before they die. A single detachment of doomweavers can render an IG Artie
>company mostly inoperational if it can pick off just two units. Hit a
>bombard, and suddenly the bombards drop from a 2+ hit to a 4+ hit, or if it
>didn't die, the bombards suddenly have to fire in advance, at which time
>they realize that they can't fire indirectly! Do the same to one of the
>basilisk detachments and his Artie company is reduced to a single
>detachment of basilisks!
Nothing else to say... for the moment.
>><snip> vs. squats . . .
>
>>>Hmmm... Of course, NEVER take Titans but Revenants in your army (see
>>>above), but definitely take Tempests! Really, what do you think about 12
>>>long-range pop-up attacks with a -3 Save Mod and 1+ Saves for 900 pts?
>
>>Against squats they are so much toast. He will have a colossus with a
>>pop-up skimmer, or overlords, so no hiding and waiting until he is out of
>>first fire (like that would happen with a squat player anyway). Next he
>>takes some of that 9 barrage point, -3 armor save artillery and pegs as many
>>tempests as he wishes. I'd be willing to bet that the rockets from a
>>Colossus would be able to break a detachment single-handedly in a lot of
>>cases.
>
>Yeah, I have to agree here. I never take Tempests against the Squats.
I agree, it can (it will?) happen. On first turn. That's why, for the first
time, I took 3 Tempests Squadrons (instead of 2) in my army for the battle
I was talking about. I expected many of them being killed after first turn.
It did not happen (total Tempests losses: 2/9), because of:
1. Good saves (1+ -3 ---> 4+, better than nothing)
2. Not so good target selection from my opponents (they were so sure they
had plenty of shots, anyway).
3. Hidden and very rear deployment of the Tempests (near the edge of the
table, meaning that only the very long-ranged weapons on first fire could
hit them).
4. Systematic destruction (or neutralization) of the weapons able to
destroy the Tempests by the Doomweavers before they could shoot (except the
Colossus, of course, 1+ save).
Anyway, why did I take those Tempests, knowing many would be destroyed?
Simple answer: Range of an Overlord: 75 cm; Range of a Tempest: 100 cm. You
could replace them by Firestorms, but then, no save allowed against the -3
artillery...
>>> Let's go back to the Squats: I agree with the Eldritch Storm
>>>tactics, even if it means very often that you would dangerously expose your
>>>Warlocks, something I hate to do: better keep them for the end of the game.
>
>>Warlocks have to be exposed. If you dont' use them, then why buy them?
>
>I'm pretty sure here Renaud meant don't expose Warlocks unless the
>situation justifies it, a reasonable assertion.
Thank you for explaining obvious things ;-)
>>>Concerning the Jet-Bikes, you should be
>>>very lucky to find an opponent deploying his artillery within 70 cm of
>>>them, unless:
>
>>It's impossible under normal game circumstances.
>
>>>And of course, your Jet-Bikes are dead if they don't hit something
>>>immediately.
>
>>How is that? They will take a serious pounding if anyone can see them, but
>>most folks on this list have some sort of house rule that restricts pop-up
>>vision or adds shadows behind terrain, so they can often be hidden. Even if
>>they can't be hidden from indirect barrages, they can be hidden from direct
>>fire.
>
>Ah, and herein lies my strategy (and Temps it would seem) for eliminating
>Squat artillery. Skulk forward using maximum coverage from terrain and
>keeping your detachments far enough away from each other that they don't
>get caught in the same attacks. If so much as one detachment gets through,
>those Squat artillery pieces are toast. And if they don't, they've drawn
>they're points worth of fire. :)
This is not a question of pop-up vision. Of course, you can hide some of
your jet-bikes... But you must play on very rough terrain to avoid your
Wind Riders Host breaking on first turn (at least if you want to engage
sufficient numbers of Jet-Bikes to _really_ harm his artillery, taking into
account the unavoidable losses): your opponent moves ahead, too. Besides,
to hide jour Jet-Bikes in the middle of the table, I guess they must be
very close to each other... You were talking about barrages?
BTW, every army has that kind of fast CC troops (yes, I know, not always so
fast, but...) and in general, people try to apply this tactics against _me_
(being afraid of my rear artillery). I never saw it working very well:
those troops can be destroyed by anything firing on the battlefield -
another use for the Guardians protecting your artillery :-() !
I'm aware this tactics could be used when you have initiative and move
second, but what do you do if you move first? To me, it's like telling the
others: "I'm there, just gun me down or kill me in CC, please". I'm Eldar,
not Ork or Chaos. What I do with the Jet Bikes _if_ I've initiative is
killing enemy advanced units and threatening important units having to
close in (Small Titans, SHV, ...) to keep them out of range, or simply
supporting assault battlegroups... Cautious tactics? Yeah, I'm really a
defender.
BTW, every army has that kind of fast CC troops (yes, I know, not always so
fast, but...) and in general, people try to apply the tactics against _me_
(others being afraid of my rear artillery). I never saw work very well:
fast CC troops can be easily destroyed by anything on the battlefield which
has firing capability... Another use for the Guardians protecting your
artillery :-()
>>> So, I prefer to destroy the Squat artillery and/or reduce its
>>>effectiveness by a combination of the following tactics:
<SNIP>
Michael's comments about the "following tactics", express, once again, just
what I've had answered. So I'll not add anything to them.
Let's go back to the freaky force and your comments about it.
>>>Just as an example, the last time I played (10 days ago), it was a 10.000
>>>pts game against a Squat army. I won 76/43 in two turns. The Squats fielded
>>>2 Colossus, 1 Cyclop, 4 Overlords, 4 Goliaths, 2 complete Land Trains, 2
>>>Artillery companies, 2 Bikers Guilds, 12 Gyrocopters, and so on. I had 9
>>>Tempests, 10 Doomweavers, 4 Firestorms, 6 Nightwings, 4 Revenants + a
>>>balanced mix of the other Eldar units. At the end of the game, my opponents
>>>still had his 2 Colossus and his Cyclop (I didn't even tried to fire at
>>>them), but nothing else among his "heavies". Great job by the Doomweavers,
>>>I confess...
>
>>What a freaky force. Your opponent chose particularly poorly considering he
>>was fighting eldar. No anti-aricraft.
He had 2 Thunderfire Batteries I didn't mention. Not enough? I had 2
Nightwing Squadrons.
>>The land trains are both doomweaver
>>fodder waiting to happen. By the time you've fired two detachments at them
>>they are hoplessly scattered. So that's 1400 points or so that fell to 300?
>>And what in the world is he doing taking a Cyclops vs. Eldar? No void
>>shield there! That's another 500 useless points. I bet I could beat anyone
>>if I started out the first turn with close to a 20% advantage in points.
>>Why not just go beat up a cripple?
>
>I have to agree with Temp here, that is a freaky force. My personal motto
>is, "don't take the Cyclops against the Eldar." Words to live by. My
>other motto is, "don't take the Land Train against the Eldar." Also words
>to live by.
No void shields, yes, and so a Cyclops is useless against anything (as
every army can have armour-piercing long range units). And I would say that
the Eldars are weaker in armour penetration capabilities than some others
(TL/IG). So, "never take a Cyclops"... maybe you're right. Concerning the
Land Trains, I suspect he just took them for the Nukes. Bad choice, I
agree, as one of the bombs was reduced to pulp before firing.
>Still, that, "Why not just go beat up a cripple?" phrase is a little harsh
>I think. Properly done, I could see that force coming out on top. They
>have a chance, albeit not as good as if they traided in the Cyclops for a
>Colossus and the Land Trains for, I dunno, anything.
Believe me or not, we (my partner and myself) were so sure that we could
have been beaten that we challenged our opponents : in a near future, we
will replay the battle with us as the squats and them as the eldars. I'm
not sure we'll win (dubious army composition, I agree), but...
If you're interested, I could post the battle report (on the Web). Maybe to
expose a terrible defeat (but not with my army ;-)).
>>>Once again, I don't understand why you don't have large numbers of shots.
>>>Once again, Tempests, Doomweavers and Firestorms are the key. Once again,
>>>masses of slowly advancing infantry are just likely to be shot before
>>>becoming dangerous.
>
>>Once again, 900 points in tempests translates to 6 hits on average. 900
>>points in Firestorms translates to 6 hits on average (or if they hit on a 3,
>>instead of a 4 as I remember, then it's 8 hits). So with 1800 points you
>>are killing 12 models per turn IF you can find that many in the open AND
>>they don't have armor saves. It takes 17 stands to break an IG tactical
>>company. IF you roll well, we'll say you break a single IG tac company at
>>600 pts . . . barely. Also, there is the ever present artillery company
>>with 150cm range. That means he can start 20 cm back from the from edge of
>>the deployment zone and your tempests and firestorms are grist for the
>>Basalisks (-2 saves, 2 templates/detachment) and Bombards (-3 saves). Your
>>doomweavers may kill a few and delay a few, but they will still eat you up.
>
>C'mon, you don't seriously fire upon IG tactical companies with Tempests
>and firestorms do you? If so, I hardly think you're in a position to be
>laughing at anyone. The strength of the Tempest is as the mailed fist of
>the Eldar, used when properly supported. Other, cheaper units are picking
>off his mud foots while the Tempest is smashing Titans and SHVs. The
>firestorm on the other hand, shows its strength as an interdiction unit.
>You blast the enemy's transports while they're still full, you knock down
>incoming aircraft. And lacking better targets, you start smashing
>everything that goes by, especially command units if possible. (also if
>your group allows it, you start smashing enemy first fire units, and when
>you've depleted those, have your first fire units start smashing enemy
>advance units until the enemy is rendered incapable of fighting back)
>
>Re: Artie company, see above where I described why I thought a Doomweaver
>firebase would defeat an Artie company.
Thank you Michal, for, _once again_, explaining obvious things. But if Temp
really fires Tempest and Firestorms at IG infantry, then, I begin to
understand everything. Now, seriously, I hope he didn't deduce from my
initial post that I only had Tempests, Doomweavers and Firestorms - and
maybe a Spirit Host - in my army???
>>You have obviously never played a chaos marine player. They are very fast
>>and shooty. Or a fast CC army for that matter (Marine bikes, slaanesh
>>beastrider, discriders, fleshounds, juggers, etc).
>
>Yeah, that's all I ever saw. Chaos marine armies. Never seen any other
>sort of Chaos army before.
The same for me after my first three games (I understand you're talking
about combined Chaos/SM/IG armies): Chaos players rapidly understand that
Chaos alone is very impressive to see on a tabletop, but is definitely not
a winning army. But as you're quoting "Basic Chaos troops"... Do you really
have problems dealing with bikes and juggers? What do you call "shooty"? 5+
or 6+ with no save mods?
>>>The best Chaos units are: Khorne Cannons
>>>(don't take titans even against chaos because of them),
>
>> Cannons of Khorne are amusing, but not terribly effective. Random BPs,
>>auto-scatter, and occasional explosions.
>
>Lose a Titan to that nasty -4 save mod, and you'll stop laughing at them.
>I did. Those things, while unpredictable, have the potential to be the
>killing blow against a Titan of any army quite easily. That unlimited
>range is kinda nice too.
Thank you, Michael. Just an example: 2 years ago, I decided to give Chaos a
chance and took a beautiful titan squadron, freshly painted (what a waste
of time!) in my army. He had three Khorne batteries. Guess what? All three
Titans down on first turn. You're right. I found that "amusing".
>>>Silver Towers,
>
>>Um, NO. I can hear the rest of the chaos players out there circling like
>>sharks if you even TRY to defend the silver towers.
>
>I don't think he was trying to say they're good for the Chaos players. I
>think he was trying to say that the silver towers are good targets. No
>denying that, one little shot, 4 vps. And they're actually pretty good
>until they get shot down, so get shooting on the double!
The only thing I meant was indeed "they are good until they get shot down"
and "strange... a Chaos unit with a decent firing capability". After all,
why do you think your titans are the primary targets of your enemies?
>>>Lord of Battles and Magnus.
>
>>LoB maybe. Magnus is good, but one shot sucks. Besides, he's easy to hide
>>from, and if you expose him so that he has a good field of fire, then he
>>becomes a siphon for your chaos cards.
One shot sucks? If I were a Chaos player, I would cherish any unit able to
fire over 50 cm, you know... And for the "siphon for Chaos cards", what do
you think of this?
>Yeah, but people shoot him because they are afraid of him. People are
>afraid of him because he is good.
:-)
>>> (but, once again, it depends on the
>>>width of the table). One last thing: don't allow house rules to denaturate
>>>the game.
>
>>Hello? You talk about changing the width of the table (a MAJOR change in
>>most peoples' opinions) and then in the next sentence talk about not
>>unbalancing the game with house rules. Widening the table drastically helps
>>the shooty armies (and vice versa). You also talked about a 10,000 pt
>>battle whent he game was designed for 3-6,000 pts., and 10 detachments of
>>Doomweavers is a little extreme even at 10k.
>
>I didn't catch him talking about a change of the table width, though I
>might ahve missed it. Also, if you call playing games not 3-6000 points
>even a significant change, well, then a lot of people out there are playing
>pretty messed up games of Space Marine.
Really, I've to say Michael seems to understand the meaning of my post and
Temp does not. Where did I talk about "changing the width of the table"?
Just remember, one of my guess for you having problems with IG or Squats
was that you were playing on a very small area... So that YOU changed the
table width. And could please tell me where you found any indication that
playing 10.000 pts games is a crime against the Holy EPIC Bible? Or that
the game was designed for 3-6000 battles? Or even that this game was
_designed_ after all... This is GW, don't forget!
>Still, I agree with you regarding 10 detachments of Doomweavers. That's as
>bad as waveserpents. Though I didn't notice him saying that either.
>Though I could be wrong.
Thanks. Temp, please, read my post:
>>>I had 9 Tempests, 10 Doomweavers, 4 Firestorms, 6 Nightwings, 4 Revenants + a
>>>balanced mix of the other Eldar units.
So I meant: 3 Tempests Squadrons, 5 Doomweavers Squadrons, 4 Firestorms, 2
Nightwings Squadrons, 2 Revenants Squadrons, etc. Is it all clear now?
>>This is getting dangerously close to me flaming you,
Yes. Doesn't matter, you know.
>>but you obviously don't
>>play a lot, or dont' play with very skilled players.
>Seriously though, aren't you being a little judgmental by basing his skill
>on what you've seen from one measily strategy advice post?
Did I say I play a lot? Really, I don't know what is "playing a lot" for
you: once a month? Once a week? Once a day (!)? I play 2-3 times/month, on
average, as my job, my wife and the rest of my life take obviously most of
my time.
Concerning the skills, what can I say? My opponents and I play board
wargames and historical miniatures wargaming since 10-15 years. We begun to
play EPIC 3 years ago, mainly because we were looking for "something
different" (historical battles and painting hundreds of infantrymen in the
same pattern can become boring). Of course, it doesn't prove anything: all
of us could be so stupid that we can't even notice it.
Anyway, the only way to be sure would be to organise some EPIC meeting
between my local group and yours. I fear we're a little bit too far away
from each other (geographically, I mean). But it would be very interesting:
in Belgium, there are few EPIC players.
>>Well, Renaud, I think I have done my best to offend you :). I'll take up
>>the Tempest discussion on another thread.
I'm sure you can do better! ;-) As I said, I'll think twice before
participating to the Tempests thread but who knows?
>>Temp (Why, yes. It IS short for Tempest. Why do you ask?)
I didn't.
>Michael the Liu
Renaud
Received on Wed Apr 02 1997 - 14:32:35 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:17 UTC