At 12:27 PM 4/1/97 -0800, you wrote:
>>>Exception: Revenants are just fantastic units!
>
>>While I think they are useful, they are also pretty easy to take down.
>
>Yeah, but I like them anyways.
I did say they were useful.
>> 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.
>
>Dark Reapers? I never take those guys. They're a terrible deal!
Just an example. It was the first long range unit I though of.
>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.
Maybe.
>>> 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.
I realize that. I'm just one of those guys who believes in an all-out
billy-berzerk attack. No skulking around the bushes. Actually, that's not
entirely true, but I don't believe in making a unit ineffective just to
protect it (Spirit Host warlocks being a notable exception).
>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. :)
Pretty much.
>>Just the artillery. This will work temporarily in an artillery duel, but he
>>will get to fire some units, and he will attempt to kill those of yours that
>>have not fired yet. There's also the fact that Goliaths are fairly small in
>>ground coverage, so even a small drift can miss them completely.
>
>I think its possible to win this one. Knock out the thunderfires first, as
>they cannot move and will die. Then just start trying to whack those
>Goliaths, each one you hit is like him hitting two of your doomweavers
>pointwise, and every other one you hit will die instead of not being able
>to fire for a turn due to being on advance.
Doomweavers are decent artillery. If you recall, I am one of the few who
have sung their praises. That being said, the Squats have a LOT of indirect
fire besides just the goliaths. Point for point, I think the DWs could hang
with Goliaths, but the Eldar will be out gunned with indirect fire.
>>>2- Nightwings deep infiltration (very risky, but juicy if it works).
>
>>It's not gonna work. Half of a Squat army is on permanent ff and a good
>>portion of that has extended firing arcs. Do you really think he'll just
>>let you fly into his deployment zone and hang out?
>
>I like those nightwings myself. Once the doomweavers knock off the AA guns
>those things have free reign of the table as I see it.
It is a slim possibility. As he said, "very risky, but juicy . . . " I
guess I should have given my acknowledgement that he did admit it was risky.
>>>3- Sacrifice of cheap troops (like Spirit host, once again)
>
>>Why will he fire at the spirit host instead of your "useful stuff"?
>
>Because you take your wraithguard and dreadnaughts and you get them in his
>face! Charge them into a group of his bikes, or use a detachment of 100
>point aspect warriors to lead them on a kamikaze assault into enemy
>territory. Make them so annoying to the enemy that he will take
>disproportionate damage if he ignores your supposedly worthless troops.
If they are "supposedly worthless", then they aren't _actually_ worthless,
and it's not a waste of firepower. I just don't see a slow moving spirit
host covering enough terrain to be dangerous to a slow moving Squat force.
The distance just isn't closed quickly enough.
>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.
Absolutely.
>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.
It was a bit harsh, but it has incredibly amusing sentimental meaning for
me. Anyway, that force is pretty hopeless. I would gladly play against
anyone who would let me pick 20% of their forces so I coul dput something as
useless as the land trains and the cyclops in it.
>>>masses of slowly advancing infantry are just likely to be shot before
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>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.
Absolutely. I agree 100%. The comment of Renaud's I highlighted above
followed a statement to the effect that tempests and firestorms (and
doomweavers) were the backbone of his army. To me this implied that he
thought that Tempests and Firestorms were going to beat back the Chinese
Wave of IG troops, which is clearly impossible (or at least incredibly
difficult).
>Re: Artie company, see above where I described why I thought a Doomweaver
>firebase would defeat an Artie company.
3 detachments vs. 3 detachments . . . pretty close to even (and the same
points, so it should be). It would have mostly to do with who got the first
shot off, and whether anything else could support the arty duel.
>> 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.
3 shots/turn and a 1/6 chance of blowing themselves up. in an average game
they will break themselves without any help. Not only that, but that random
BP thing gives them a fair chance to be flargin useless if they don't
spontaneously combust. Give me the Doom Mortars any day.
>>>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.
It was in the list with the Cannons and Lob and Magnus . . .
>>>Lord of Battles and Magnus.
>
>>LoB maybe. Magnus is good,
[Magnus draws fire because he is good - ed.] (Sorry, wiped your original
text accidentally.)
He is decent for a GD (I said he was good), but I don't think he is the
best. I would put both the Keeper of Secrets and the Lord of Change above him.
>>> (but, once again, it depends on the
>>>width of the table). One last thing: don't allow house rules to denaturate
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I didn't catch him talking about a change of the table width, though I
>might ahve missed it.
I highlighted it above. I assume that you would agree that this is a major
change?
>Also, if you call playing games not 3-6000 points
Actually, I consider it a relatively minor change. My main gripe is that
above 6,000 points it is simply a bloodbath of dice-rolling, and so much
stuff breaks that it is rarely anything but a tie. Forces that size make
tactics secondary to force composition, IMHO.
>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.
Copied from above ---->>> I had 9
>>>Tempests, 10 Doomweavers, 4 Firestorms, 6 Nightwings, 4 Revenants + a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Seriously though, aren't you being a little judgmental by basing his skill
>on what you've seen from one measily strategy advice post?
I didn't attack his tactical thinking. I said it sounded like he is either
inexperienced, or he plays with people who aren't creative enough to
challenge him. In either case, it's not his fault. You have to admit that
while you did take up for him on occasion, most of your posts agreed with my
assessment (except the arty duels, and I have backed off from my initial
extreme position).
Temp
Received on Wed Apr 02 1997 - 15:29:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:17 UTC