Re: [Epic] IG/TL vs Space Wolves

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 06:42:03 GMT

At 08:57 AM 10/4/97 -0700, you wrote:
>duckrvr_at_... wrote:
>>
>> At 09:34 AM 4/9/97 +0100, you wrote:
>>
>> >10 Imperial Bike Companies (3000 points)
>> >1 Reaver battlegroup with: (1000 points)
>> > - 2 Reavers with Warp missile, Quake Cannon, Gatling Blaster
>> > - 1 Reaver with Combat head, Warp missile, Chain Saw and Power Ram
>>
>> Survey says . . . X, bad answer
>>
>> Definite cheese factor present.
>I think these special situations are interesting for a one shot game. I
>enjoy the simulation aspects of wargaming. You can create what if
>scenarios for WW2 armor battles where the force composition does not
>match any TOE. In fact, most people play their WW2 micro armor using the
>best tanks available even though they were rare.
>
>The battle force listed above is simliar in concept. If I had these
>forces available in a much larger army, I might have skimmed the bike
>companies off their regimental commands and grouped them for a quick
>flanking strike. I might even have assigned the Reaver group as support
>for this unit. Strategy like this can be found in the American Civil War
>by Jeb Stuart's cavlary under R.E. Lee's command.
>
>I think the cheese found in the characters with game swaying powers
>(Gaz_at_#$% the orc Warlord) or the almost unkillable unit (Dominatrix)
>more than in the massing of support units. After all, that is just
>making the best use of what is available. I would categorize that as
>thinking. I know, we aren't suppose to do that in GW games, but
>occassionally some wise guy slips in and does it. George Washington made
>use of terrain and ambush in age when that was considered "unfair".
>Montgomery and Wavell before him used massed bomber attacks, called
>"carpet bombing", to overcome Rommel in the dessert. Their armor was
>inferior on a tank to tank basis, so they tried a different approach.
>This from the most methodical and conventional army of the era.
>
>No, I have to disagree with the idea that this is a cheesy OOB.
>
>danlobb_at_...
>


I'd say I had to disagree with you disagreeing about this richly matured OOB.

"Too much of a good thing is... cheesy!"

Agro
Received on Fri Apr 11 1997 - 06:42:03 UTC