At 01:36 PM 4/4/97 +0200, you wrote:
>>
>> >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"...
>
>For the record, your friends are not the only ones who find chaos
>among the weakest armies.
I don't agree here. When I really want to kick my oponent I take chaos.
When I want a challenging game I take a weaker army. (I rarely lose with
chaos.)
> I'm a chaos general and I have found that
>it's really a challenge not to be anihilated before you've managed
>to kill a single enemy. Mostly because your enemy is content to
>take a maximally shooty force and just pound you as you walk, at a
>snails pace, across the table.
>This is especially true when playing vs. eldar, IG/SM and squats.
>There are other problems like: you have to take GD:s that cost a
>bunch and basically do nothing. LoB & Plaguetower excluded.
>If you try to use GD:s there are usually a GD-killer unit just
>waiting for them. Either drawing all your chaos cards, like twin
>pulsars tend to do, or psychic attacks that slays them outright.
>
>I've not seen the new rules yet (should be arriving next friday)
>so I don't know if the chaos army is an improved prospect.
>I'm not saying you can't win with chaos, BUT you have to really
>think hard about your troop choices and tactics. On the other
>hand while playing squats, at least vs. chaos, you can grab just
>about any shooty stuff put them on the table on FF and just fire
>away until the opponent is dead.
>
>Heh, I bet I've upset a few squat players by that comment, and just
>to stave off some flames: I know it's an oversimplifacation. But
>our resident squat player do agree with me to some extent.
>
>I've tried playing with IG allies and it really worked miracles for
>my army. My opponent was totally shocked when I actually fired back
>in the first turn. Heh.
I _never_ take IG allies (too easy) and I _always_ shoot back in the first
turn (with chaos marines or marine equipment).
>However I find it sad that an army can't stand on it's own, and
>usually don't take any IG allies.
>Oh, and titans is not the solution, never take titans in a chaos
>force since your opponent will get more titans for the same amount
>of points. Warhounds excluded. And the banelord is crap!
Yes, the Banelord is crap, and warhounds are only so usefull, but I find the
chaos weapons a fair equaliser for the lack of battle groups.
>
>Silvertowers are crap (because they give your opponent alot of vps
>real easy).
>
>PS. As I said I've not seen the new rules and they may invalidate
> anything I've said. .DS
Yes they might, but how many of us are actually going over to the 40K heresy?
Agro
>
>
>cokke_at_... |
> dvlpan_at_... | http://www.ts.umu.se/~cokke | Peter "Cokke" Andersson
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>My language is my own and any resemblance to any real language is purely
>coincidental.
>
Received on Fri Apr 04 1997 - 14:43:25 UTC