Re: [Epic] Firepower vs Anti-Tank (long)

From: Richard Dewsbery <dewsbery_at_...>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 20:36:36 +0100

> > In terms of the nitty gritty, we know Raiders kill Russ's. But how does
> > each do against infantry? Say Orks?
>
> Here you left out one important fact. The Land Raiders (with their 45cm
> range) should get a turn of fire at full effect while the Orks are moving
> to within 30cm. This will change the results dramaticaly of your example
> below.

The same goes for the Leman Russ. But I've tried to do as even-handed a
comparison as possible of the units' shooting abilities only. If I was
playing the Orks, I sure as hell wouldn't sit still for 3 rounds getting
shot to bits - I'd be charging into close assault by the second round.
And I'd have Stompas. And I wouldn't expect the tanks to sit there and
wait for me to arrive. But then the comparison would be a full-blown
simulation of the game - why not just play the game instead. I wanted
to compare just the shooting, to see how each type of tank would fare in
a prolonged shooting exchange vs infantry.

> Also, your assumption that other fire will effect the number of BM
> on each unit makes your example invalid. If you make that assumption, you
> bring in all kinds of personal opinion about which unit is seen as the
> greater threat. You specifically stated that the LR would attract more
> "outside" fire, while your example shows that the infantry is the greater
> threat.

Hm, I'm not sure how you think that the infantry is the greater threat
when we don't know what else might be on the table! I ran the numbers
first - if people disagree from the conclusions I came to, both from the
numbers themselves and from experience in play, then they are welcome to
reach their own conclusions. I did not factor in outside BMs during the
number crunching, but play experience shows me that you are better off
loading BMs onto a detachment of 340 points of Land Raiders than 140
points of bikes, and other players by and large do their utmost to
suppress such potent detachments when given the luxury of choosing their
targets.

  If your example holds true (I didn't check your math), then more
> "outside" fire should be directed at the infantry.

Why?

> And, my earlier example was not about "a stand up fight". It was giving
> every advantage to the Leman Russ tanks, and showing them lose anyway.

Well, I'm not sure how you say it _wasn't_a stand up fight - if I was
playing the Leman Russ tanks, I'd have done my damnedest to ensure that
I didn't get shot at by Land Raiders. Besides, the Land Raiders are
tank killers. But they are NOT gods driving round the battlefield. Its
all a question of "rock, paper, scissors". Your land raiders kill my
Leman russ's. My leman russ's kill your infantry. Your infantry kill
my artillery. And my artillery crush your Land Raiders.

> Yes, AT weapons take a greater loss in killing power from BM. The most
> BM that can be inflicted by a single det on another is 4, removing 4 50%
> chances for a kill. 4BM against a FP det reduces FP by 4, removing 2 dice
> of effect. Even firing at Grechin or Guardians the best odds for a kill
> is 50%, and is likely to be much less. My point is that LR are very
> potent units, and why you would want to take a det of Land Raiders and a
> det of Leman Russ tanks is beyond me. Take two det of Land Raiders!
 On this then we'll agree to differ. If I'm facing orks, I'll take a
couple of small detachments of land raiders to deal with stompas and
other highly desireable targets. But to blow through the orky
infantry, it'll be a big block of Leman Russ.

RichardKen Taborek wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Jun 1997, Richard Dewsbery wrote:
>
> [chomp]
> > > Let's get down to the nitty-gritty here.
> > >
> > -snipped example that Land Raiders ronk all over an equal formation of
> > Leman Russ in a stand up fight -
> > that's why they're called "anti-tank" shots.
> >
> [chomp]
> >
> > In terms of the nitty gritty, we know Raiders kill Russ's. But how does
> > each do against infantry? Say Orks?
>
> Here you left out one important fact. The Land Raiders (with their 45cm
> range) should get a turn of fire at full effect while the Orks are moving
> to within 30cm. This will change the results dramaticaly of your example
> below. Also, your assumption that other fire will effect the number of BM
> on each unit makes your example invalid. If you make that assumption, you
> bring in all kinds of personal opinion about which unit is seen as the
> greater threat. You specifically stated that the LR would attract more
> "outside" fire, while your example shows that the infantry is the greater
> threat. If your example holds true (I didn't check your math), then more
> "outside" fire should be directed at the infantry.
>
> And, my earlier example was not about "a stand up fight". It was giving
> every advantage to the Leman Russ tanks, and showing them lose anyway.
>
> >
> > Example 1 - detachment of 9 Land Raiders (340 pts) vs 18 boyz stands, 10
> > nobz and warboss (342 pts). Land raiders have armour 6, 2At each for a
> > total of 18AT. The Orks have armour 4+ (with about 60% of the units
> > having a save), FP1 each for a total of 29.
> >
> > Conclusion, if the Imperials fire first, they will come out on top,
> > marginally. If the Orks get the first blow in, the Land Raiders will be
> > decimated for little or no loss.
> >
> > Example 2 - detachment of 10 Leman Russ (345 pts) vs 18 boyz stands, 10
> > nobz and warboss (342 pts). LRs have armour 6, F3 each for a total of
> > 30. The Orks have armour 4+ (with about 60% of the units having a
> > save), FP1 each for a total of 29.
> > First, assuming the tanks get the initiative, the orks are left with 9
> > boyz 7 nobz and the warboss, with 8BMs (64%)
> > The imperials have 6 tanks and 7 BMs (63%).
> >
> > Conclusion - again, the tanks will be blown away if they lose the
> > initiative, but will cause more casualties to the orks. the exchange
> > when the tanks have the first fire is less conclusive for the first 3
> > rounds.
> >
> > Overall, running the numbers showed me yet again that ork nobz' staying
> > power can be a real pain, and that BMs will reduce Land Raiders to a
> > quivering mess. However, while they are fresh, they are much more
> > potent than the Leman Russ tanks. The lesson then is to use Leman Russ
> > tanks in the longer, bruising engagements, and keep the Land Raiders out
> > of harm's way until the hammer blow is required.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> Yes, AT weapons take a greater loss in killing power from BM. The most
> BM that can be inflicted by a single det on another is 4, removing 4 50%
> chances for a kill. 4BM against a FP det reduces FP by 4, removing 2 dice
> of effect. Even firing at Grechin or Guardians the best odds for a kill
> is 50%, and is likely to be much less. My point is that LR are very
> potent units, and why you would want to take a det of Land Raiders and a
> det of Leman Russ tanks is beyond me. Take two det of Land Raiders!
>
> --Ken
Received on Mon Jun 23 1997 - 19:36:36 UTC