At 04:32 PM 4/2/97 +0200, you wrote:
>Chaos definitely _can_ field sufficient barrage templates to take your
>titans down the same way as IG or Squats.
Ah. Taking 50% allies is something I have rarely seen. Personally, I've
never seen a chaos player take more than an artillery company or a SM scout
company as allies. I will maintain that going through two army lists and
picking the best units from both is cheesy. It is almost acceptable from
SM/IG, but since chaos already effectively gets all the chaos units and all
the marine units, I think taking IG on top of that is overkill. Of course,
with the preponderance of IG as a standard chaos tactic, it explains why
you've never seen a really fast chaos force.
In any case, you based your statements of how to fight a chos force based on
this assumption, so it is hardly valid in a general sense. Given the
clarification, your statements are reasonable. And no, I dont' think it was
something that should have been obvious.
>1. A titan with a psy lance _never_ shot anything with that _short-ranged_
>weapon before being killed.
Not if you bomb him with artillery. However, barring allies, Chaos has
littel barrage capability.
>2. The more IG my opponent had, the more the game was difficult for me. No
>exception.
Then why did you dismiss the IG saying that you would simply shoot them to
bits before they got close?
>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.
Orks are fun, but can only field precious few barrages.
>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.
It's pretty hard to hide from Overlords and Command Gyrocopters. I would
imagine that a single colossus with the gyrocopter could kill at least 1
revenant/turn. I never said they were a bad choice, just that they were
limited.
>Here, I must say the answer of Michael was, IMHO, perfect. I quote:
>
>>Dark Reapers?
>>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.
>Nothing else to say... for the moment.
And I said I dont' take DRs, it was just an example (apparently a poor one),
and the doomweaver can hang with most artillery. I love them. Apparently
you and I are the amongst the few.
>>Yeah, I have to agree here. I never take Tempests against the Squats.
>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...
Personally, I've found the best chance at killing an Overlord is lots of
shots. A bolter can take one down almost as easily as a lascannon. I would
much rather take cheap infantry shots at it and save the armor save mods for
something they are needed for.
About Jetbikes:
>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.
But you said you took Tempests (1400 pts worth) expecting them to be blown
away. I would be willing to bet that 2 windrider hosts could do just as
much damage, plus they can take objectives.
>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.
That's not what I addressed as my primary concern.
>>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.
That can't have been the reasoning, or he wouldn't have taken 2 full trains,
he would have taken 2 half trains. The fact is, it is a poor force.
>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...
Using the same forces? Good luck, if that is what you mean.
>If you're interested, I could post the battle report (on the Web). Maybe to
>expose a terrible defeat (but not with my army ;-)).
Sure.
>>>>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.
>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???
Maybe I should emphasize what you said. "...I don't understand why you
don't have large numbers of shots . . . Tempests, Doomweavers and
Firestorms are the key . . ." To me that sounds as if you are expecting
Tempests, doomweavers and Firestorms to "have large numbers of shots." They
don't. They have relatively few shots for the points you pay for them (in
the case of Tempests) or have no endurance against firepower (Firestorms and
Doomweavers) or just can't be expected to kill very many models consistently
(all of them).
>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?
No, I call fast and shooty 2 chaos marine companies that hit on a 4, -1 save
mod, and come screaming onto the board in thawks (a reasonable number in
even a 3000 point game). Support them with a couple warhounds, a few
detachments of bikes/riders along with the GDs and you have a very fast,
shooty 4000 point army. And it has no allies.
>>>>The best Chaos units are: Khorne Cannons
>>>>(don't take titans even against chaos because of them),
>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".
Sounds like good die rolls to me. On average, with 9 of them you will get
1.5 to blow up, 1.5 that hit only on a 6, 1.5 that hit on a 5, etc. Plus a
fair chance (ball park - 50/50) of scattering off the titan to begin with.
That comes to about 4 hits before the scatter. (1.5*1/6+1.5*2/6,
etc=1.5*15/6=22.5/6 which is less than 4) After scatter, lets call it 2.
Let's say you save on a six (2 save, and -4 save mod) if he doesn't scatter
off (ball park again - how about 1 in 10?), and he has roughly a 1/3 chance
of killing you when he rolls damage. 2 hits* 5/6 chance of you failing
save*1/3 chance of killing you outright=5/9 . . . just over half, and I
didnt' add the possibility of scattering off since I don't have a chart in
front of me. So he should have taken down a single titan on average with
600 points of units, that's about right.
He definitely got lucky.
>>>>Silver Towers,
>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?
So are silver towers. They are little more than popcorn. Ask any chaos
general.
>>>>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?
You don't need shots over 50cm. Chaos will get chewed up on the first few
turns, even with a shooty force (marines, squats, titans and so forth) But
every chaos unit s good in cc, and the cards can really hammer an opponent
if used properly.
>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!
I highlighted where you questioned the table size in my reply to Michael.
You did not ask if the person you were advising changed the tabel size.
There seemed to be a connotation of assumption in your phrasing. If you
don't do this, fine. I never said games that big were against the law, just
that they are pointless (unless you are extending the board to 10 or 12 feet
width, which would probably cause more problems).
>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.
My apologies. I did misread that . . . twice.
>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.
Versus a variety of opponents and forces. It sounds like you have fought
only people in a fairly small group, and they take largely similar forces
each game. Frex, all the games against chaos have had large IG allied
contingents.
>Concerning the skills, what can I say? My opponents and I play board
>wargames and historical miniatures wargaming since 10-15 years.
Then I don't understand why your (implied) descriptions of their tactics
sound so single-minded, or the fact that the crew you play with apparently
thinks that chaos is weak because they are lacking in distance weapons.
>Of course, it doesn't prove anything: all
>of us could be so stupid that we can't even notice it.
I guess I deserved that, but again, I never attacked your skill.
>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.
I have family there, but I think getting the rest of the folks over there
would be problematic.
I'm glad you didnt' seem to take it personally. Your English is fine if you
picked up on some of the subtler sarcasm I used, not to mention the fact
that you used a fairly slick rhetorical device by changing the focus on
several of my statements, most notably the force composition statements.
Temp
Received on Wed Apr 02 1997 - 18:07:17 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:17 UTC