Re: [Epic] Tempests - tanks, or just good anchors?

From: Renaud Delhaye <rde_at_...>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 17:38:52 +0200

Temp wrote:

>>At 05:24 PM 4/1/97 +0200, you wrote:
>>> 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?
>
>Tempests just give your opponent points. For 900 points I can take 18
>falcons, which gives a much greater amount of versatility. You might need
>the extra range vs. Squats, but I think +50% on the number of shots and the
>versatility of deployment and the ability to carry troops and the ability to
>NOT be broken after losing only 3 models will make up for it.

No. I already mentioned this in the post about Eldar tactics, but we seem
to have completely different approaches to the game. To me, EPIC is
dominated by long range fire. CC and short range fire (= less than 75 cm)
are far less important and are, after all, limited to special circumstances
(yes, I _mean_ it). Average range being 75 cm for most armies, anything
firing over 75 cm is a good deal, because it means that you will be firing
before most opponents could reply. You don't need "extra range" against the
Squats: you need "extra range" in every situation.

So, even if I can't do but agree with your impressive calculations (and
you're right, 4+), this is clearly one of the reasons why I can't agree
with your conclusions. There are others (see behind). Oh yes, I think
Falcons' save is 3+, not 4+. This is good for Falcons, isn't it?

Nevertheless, I would like to point out something you seem to forget:

>Given that Tempests are going to save roughly twice as often (or maybe a
>little better) since anything that has enough range to duel with these tanks
>is going to have a pretty good save mod itself, we'll give the Tempests the
>benefit of the doubt and say they save 3 times as often. This means by the
>time you break a Tempest host (3 casualties) you can inflict 9 falcon
>casualties. That will break one company and be within one of breaking
>another, assuming that you have not gotten excess hits on the same falcon
>company.

Didn't hear about barrage templates with 100/150 cm range and 0 save mod?
Plenty of them in IG/SM/Squats armies. So, where a Falcon will have a 2-
chance of being destroyed, a Tempest will not even require a die roll.
Believe me, I saw many Falcons killed by Thudd Guns, Whirlinds and the
like... A Tempest, never, simply because it is immune to "light shots". So
a Squat artillery company is useless against Tempests and dangerous against
Falcons (just an example)...

>After we have done the analysis of firepower and endurance then we can take
>into account flexibility (multiple detachments, and troop carrying abilities).

Multiple Detachments? 4 instead of 6, OK. And then? Do you charge across
the table with your Tempests and your Falcons?

Troops carrying abilities? Here we come to the real problem: you're just
comparing apples and pears. Tempests are long range artillery with pop-up
capability and Falcons are flexible troops carriers ("flexible" meaning
that they may act as battle tanks). Note that once they have been used as
troops carriers, they are in general deployed in an advanced position and
will be shot or destroyed in CC in a very near future (even behind
buildings). So, their role as a possible "firebase" is gone. You have to
choose. Flexibility is potential (e.g. before the battle), not a permanent
asset (e.g. during the battle).

So, if it was the meaning of your post:

No, the Tempests are not tanks. It's obvious and there were not meant to be
used as tanks in the system (maybe Gavin Thorpe would, but...). However,
they are one of the most powerful unit of their type (long range artillery)
in the EPIC system.

>Give me the good old falcons any day.

Really, the problem is not taking one OR the other... It's just taking both
and use them for what they have been designed...

>Temp (although now considering changin my nick)

Renaud (having no nick and not considering changing anything)
Received on Wed Apr 02 1997 - 15:38:52 UTC