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

From: Cameron Bentsen <stu7i95_at_...>
Date: 02 Apr 1997 12:27 EST

In message "[Epic] Tempests - tanks, or just good anchors?", you write:

> 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.

I guess we really do have very different play philosophies, then. Units that
fire at ranges greater than 75cm are a relative rarity in my games, simply
because most units that I use can move fast enough to be within 75cm or even
50cm of their intended target within the first turn. Since you tend to have to
give up firepower to get range, it seems a bad trade to me; perhaps it's
different with the eldar army. In general, I'd rather have a large number of
cheap (but mobile) troops rather than a few that are more powerful, because it
tends to be easier to kill a few models than many, even if those few have
better armour. Especially since armour doesn't help in CC (and there are ways
to get units into CC with your tempests, even if they sit way back on the board
edge.)

> 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)...

Things like the Squat Grand Battery, Whirlwinds, etc. (lots of range, BP, but
no save mod) also rarely appear in my games. They simply don't have enough
firepower to be worth it. For instance, with the Grand Battery, you pay 450
points (I think) or more, but what do you really get? Three barrage templates
that will most likely hit the one or two models they cover, but probably won't
hurt them unless they're infantry! If you're shooting at falcons, you'd
probably only get a couple; the falcons cost the same and would do a much
better job shooting at themselves.

>
> >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).
>

I agree that, for the purposes of comparing Tempests to Falcons as fire support
platforms, we should ignore the Falcon's troop carrying abilities, as they
don't fit this role. However, I don't agree that properly supported Falcons
being used as transports are necessarily toast after they have dropped their
loads; it depends on a number of other factors, such as the availability of
cover and on the opposing force's army selection/deployment/strategy.

Also, flexibility is not just before a battle. I doubt you'll see too many
Tempests moving off FF orders even if an objective/enemy target is just out
of range, or getting side or rear shots on enemy models.

> 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...
>

I agree with you about the role of the Tempest. It's just that, while Falcons
can take over the role of the Tempest (long range fire support) and do a
reasonably good job of it (as well as being over all harder to break/destroy),
the reverse cannot be said of Tempests. As a result, my feeling is that it is
generally more useful to take a Falcon host than a detachment of Tempests.
Obviously there are exceptions, and a tactic of pounding whatever can hurt the
Tempests first is a good one; however, as a rule I'd rather not have any overly
valuable units at all than have some and be forced to try to protect them, or
worse, have too many and not be able to protect them all.

Of course, as I mentioned before, my playing style is a lot more "in your face"
than "sit back and shoot". Things might well work differently in your gaming
group.

Cameron Bentsen, Ottawa.
Received on Wed Apr 02 1997 - 17:27:00 UTC