Temp wrote:
>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.
Hmm. Some points there, apparently specific to my gaming group:
1. When we began playing the game, two of our players selected Chaos armies
(pretty miniatures, impressive combat stats) and two other selected Eldars
(including me, as I'm a defender and their stats seemed to correspond to my
playing style). The rest selected the Imperium (including Squats). We
agreed that allowing Chaos to field IG was a little bit against the spirit
of the game and forbid it. Our first games fielded often 100% Chaos forces
vs 100% Eldar forces, 5-6000 points.
2. Both Chaos players rapidly refused to go into battle without the support
of IG players' figures, simply because they were repeatedly and hopelessly
crushed by long-range fire before getting into CC or even into range
(except Khorne batteries, of course). We first allowed SM units only, then
25% of IG troops, then 50%. Now, Chaos players feel they have the
opportunity to play more balanced games, even if beating the Eldars is
still a dream for them :-).
3. Anyway, I agree with you: picking up the best troops in different lists
is cheesy. I don't like it. And why would it be more acceptable from
Imperium, "historical" considerations not being taken into account? Getting
some of the best infantry and transport flyers (SM) with some of the best
artillery (IG/Squats) is definitely not in the "spirit of the game" (if
there is any... again, this is GW...).
4. I saw some "fast Chaos forces", but I admit there was not enough Thawks
to pass through the Firestorms. So...
5. Why is it like that? Why Chaos armies seem useless in our group and not
in others, even at 5-6000 pts? Is it that we found a way to transmute a GW,
CC-oriented game into a firefight game? Actually, this was not intented and
so, I don't know how we did it... Maybe blame on the fact we came from
historical wargaming, where firefight _is_ really crucial.
>>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.
Yes, barring allies'artillery and barring the damned Khorne batteries. Two
assets the Chaos armies of my group have in sufficient numbers...
>>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?
When I said "difficult", I meant because of their artillery endangering my
fire base. And I didn't dismiss the IG as such, only their infantry (slow,
low morale), which I never saw doing anything valuable in a game, except
the heavy troops.
>>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.
And we agree on this last sentence. No? Yes.
>>>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.
>
>And I said I dont' take DRs, it was just an example (apparently a poor one),
I understand. Same problem for me when I quoted the Guardians.
>and the doomweaver can hang with most artillery. I love them. Apparently
>you and I are the amongst the few.
It seems. And for the second time, we agree...
>>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.
Your cheap infantry will be chewed up before firing. At least, in my group,
it would. My point was, as usual, based on the range consideration and not
on the save mod, of course.
>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.
1. I said I expected a substancial part of them being blown away. Not all
of them. And experience showed this was not the case: the Tempests didn't
give any VP to the Squats and cut down 4 Overlords and so much other things
I can't remeber (but I was a bit lucky, OK).
2. I understand that with the playing philosophy in your group, 2 Wind
Riders Hosts charging across the battlefield could do important damages. In
my group, this is just giving up 14 VP's. BTW, the Squats tried this during
the battle, launching an all-out attack with 2 Bikers Guilds to destroy my
artillery. I confess I was a little bit worried at the end of turn one, as
their remnants were obviously in range of my precious Tempests, Doomweavers
and Firestorms. On turn two, FF infantry and Falcons, combined with some
Scorpions and Harlequins charging them in CC easily solved the "problem".
3. Taking objectives? This is the job of specialised groups in my army:
each assault group (I usually have two of them) receive one Scouts det.,
one Avengers Det. in Falcons, one Scorpions Det. in Wave Serpent and one
Revenants Squadron. With such a force, you can take and re-take any
objective during 4 turns (and most games end in 3), while -if your opponent
wants to take the objective- distracting important enemy forces from your
firebase.
The freaky force:
Oops! I'm sorry. I talked about a Cyclops where there was a Leviathan. I
confused the names of those damned super-heavies and this is why I didn't
really understand your cries about taking a "Cyclops" against the Eldars
(in my mind, it was a Leviathan) and the "no void shields there" from
Michael. I must stop drinking so much ;-). No, seriously, he was not so
stupid to take a Hellfury where he needed a Doomsday! Doesn't change the
Land Train problem, anyway...
>>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.
Yep, that's what I mean (and with the two f... Land Trains, yes).
>>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.
Sure, you're interested, or sure, I will be terribly defeated?
>>>>>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).
Remember: our insistance on long range firing. So, I always have "large
numbers of shots", considering few armies can field as many long-range
units as Eldars. But now I understand what you meant (I think). And I never
talked about Tempests firing at infantry: I only mentionned "webbing" the
infantry with Doomweavers - seems reasonalble to me after first turn,
because you seemed to lack of other troops being able to deal with the IG
infantry.
>>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.
<SNIP>
>He definitely got lucky.
Yes. He was. But if you add this bad experience to the fact that Chaos may
deploy IG artillery, then, you should understand why I decided not to take
any Phantom or Warlock Titans against Chaos again.
>So are silver towers. They are little more than popcorn. Ask any chaos
>general.
Yes, I know. They would obviously agree with you. So do I. Anyway, their
stats are good and that's just what I meant.
>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.
Philosophical differences, once again...
>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.
Table size: we use a "generic table", 3 m * 1,8 m maximum and adapt it to
game size. It means that maximum width for deployment of the forces is 50
cm (pretty much, I know, but it only occurs in _very_ huge games and we
know wide tables advantage shooty forces, so we're careful). Otherwise, as
far as I know, there are no accurate rule for deployment width, except the
80 cm distance between forces. Maybe I will be flamed about this... :-(
>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).
width? you mean "length"? If so, I admit this is the case but don't see
major problems, really.
>My apologies. I did misread that . . . twice.
Don't worry. I just had the impression you were taking me for a fool. I
think I was wrong, as it appears now we weren't really speaking about the
same "game" (but well about the same rules). My apologies too for being a
little bit "hostile" (Michael's words).
>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.
Not the first ones (see above). And for the other armies, with 100.000 pts
of Imperium/Squats troops facing me, variety is guaranteed. BTW, a total
mix of those forces is really the only force which is frightening me. This
is another challenge by the Imperial players: 10.000 pts battle against
IG/SM/Squats/TL. No idea of what will be on the other side of the table.
We should play that on 19th of april.
>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.
I already tried to explain that: they don't "think", they "saw" it. And
frankly, the only solution I see, is, you mentioned it, putting most of the
army in Thawks and going for the fire base. And then? Next time I'll take
more Firestorms. So he'll take more Thawks. So I'll take more Firestorms...
I don't call that "playing"...
>>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.
The same for me in the other direction... One day, maybe. Anyway, if you're
coming in Belgium, just tell me: we"ll arrange some meeting, if you want.
>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.
Did I? ;-) Anyway, thanks for my English and don't worry: I didn't take it
personnally, and now less than ever.
Renaud
Received on Thu Apr 03 1997 - 10:44:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:17 UTC