Re: [Epic] Ork Units & Tactics [Long]

From: David Lado <lado_at_...>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 23:23:31 -0400 (EDT)

*WARNING* This is a _long_ rant!

[Delete Sean's statistical breakdown of the ork army for the sake of space]

*Ahem* (Get on soap box :)

I am very distrustful of bean counting such as this. These sorts of
comparisons are interesting and often useful, but rarely give an
accurate portrait of how units function on the field.

The main points I have against statistical analysis like this are:

1) All these points look at units in isolation, which is not how they
operate on the field. This leads to broad generalizations that "unit
X should never be fielded, because unit Y is superior" even though units
may play roles which make them more valuable beyond their basic statistics.
For example, Stompers are slow, and come up statistically short against
other tanks. True, if I act like my Stompers are Lemon Wusses and bang
heads with real tanks, I'll have my ass handed to me (and rightfully
so). Stomper's aren't tanks, you don't field them like tanks (they
can't form armored detachments), they aren't armoured like tanks, and
they are out run and gunned by real tanks. Stompers are support
vehicles; they back up assault forces.

For example, I can design a force consisting of:

-a gargant w/warlord
-an assault force of nobz and boyz (to soak up casualties) + Stompers
-a force of battlewagons to carry the assault force (can be boulstered
with speedstas with SHWs)

I put the assault force on assault orders on the first turn. On the
second, the infantry stays on assault orders while the battle wagons
go to normal orders (or to assault depending on the situation).

The first turn, the stompers will be left behind, but not out of
control range. On the second turn, the battlewagons can continue to
carry the infantry during the movement phase while the infantry
stomps forward on its own during the assault phase (a process which
can be repeated the next turn).
Using Stompers like this let's me take advantage of their stregnths
while minimizing their weaknesses. Specifically:

a) The stompers may not be fast, but they are fast enough to keep
    up with this force. And they don't want to be up with the main
    force anyway since they would only overcrowd the units there.
    Also, they're back with the gargant, which is the central part
    of the assault force (i.e. you don't want the infantry to leave
    the gargant behind in anycase).
 
b) Stompers are thin-skinned, but sitting at the back of the deatchment
    the only thing that will be able to reach them (without blasting
    through the rest of the detachment first) are ATs and DRs, and all
    the armour in the world won't help against those.

c) The stompers can use their FP both to put BMs on the enemy as they
    advance, and to lend some heavy support to any FFs

d) Since the detachment is fundamentally an assault force, they can
    also take advantage of their decent AF (at very least, they are not
    a liability).

Such a role would have never come out of a simple mathematical comparison
of their stats to other units, because they are filling a role that is
not comperable to other units (they're not tanks, they're not close
support, they're a hybid of the two).

2) Making these predictions predisposes players to use/not use certain
units. If, for example, you never field ork boyz and only field nobz, you
will come to the conclusion that nobz are indeed the only way to go, even
though you have no actual experience to base it on. Also, because units
function better in heterogenpous groups (at least for orks), never
fielding unit X may lead to another unit being less useful (because it
needs unit X for support), leading a player to a mistaken conclusion that
both units are useless.

For example, say a player decides big gunz are a bad points value and
does not field them. He does, however, give pulsa rockets a try, but
quickly discovers that they are too easily suppressed by blast markers
and abandons them as well. However, if he had fielded some big guns
in conjuction with the pulsas, he could have soaked off the effects of
the blastmarkers, making the pulsas more effective. However, because he
had made the a-priori decision not to field the big guns, he will never
realize this.

3) These statistics can often overlook subtle, but none the less
significant, points. For example, Sean says that Battlefortresses are
a bad deal because they are too slow, too weak, and you can buy more FP
with the points in other units. All these are true, but they overlook
other advantages of battlefortresses.
        a) They allow the ork player to concentrate firepower in a
            smaller area. 40 battlewagons give 40 FP more cheaply than
            5 battlefortresses, but they also occupy a much larger area.
            They battlefortesses can be combined with a larger force
            without overcrowding, while 40 BWs cannot be easily combined
            with any other force without having to overcrowd or spread
            out. Either way, such a force will be more susceptable to
            enemy fire.
        b) Such statistical analysis overlook the ability of a unit to
            fufill a unique and usefull roll. Again using BFs as an
            example, they may not be statistically the best deal in the
            ork army, but they are the _only_ unit the orks have that can
            carry more than unit. That means they can operate in a role
            no other unit can fill.
        c) These statistics also overlook issues of availability. For
            example, stormboyz may be a better deal than boar boyz, but
            you can only take 4 to a detachment, while you can put up to
            40 boarboyz in a detachment. Thus boarboyz can form a shock
            force stormboyz could not match without fielding multiple
            detachments (which drives up the relative costs).

5) The assesments can be simply incorrect. For example: Sean says
about big gunz and pulsas:
> Both have to shorter range and are to slow.
> Only usefully if you are on the defensive or
> when conducting a slow rumbling attack (which
> is exactley the type of attack Orks want avoid
> conducting). Only take them in exceptional
> circumstanes.
However, big gunz and pulsa are equally mobile as nobz, which are
the primary assault force. There is nothing with would prevent an
ork player from putting a detachment of big gunz/pulsas on overwatch and
then carting it around on a seperate detachment of battlewagons, making
it extremely mobile.

Along these lines, the advice given by people often stems from
experience with a limited application of a unit. For example, Sean's
assesment of battlefortresses was based on the performance of
single units, not on the ability of multiple fortresses. Also, you never
know how the person is using the units (alone, with other units, with
which other units, in what role, ect) or what the opponent is doing.
I love getting advice from other players because it often brings to
light ideas I have overlooked, but I would never totally dismiss a
unit based on the experience of others because I can never be totally
sure what they were doing in their battles.

Conclusion:

The bottom line is (IMO) nothing beats experience and expermentation.
The statistics like Seans can be useful to assess the stregnths and
weakeness of certain units and even whole armies. For example, Sean
very correctly points out that field lots of firepower is not the
best option for the orks, their stregnth lies in their assault ability
and in their nobz in particular. *However*, you should never
catagorically rule out using any unit in the army. These rules have
been playtested (despite cynical comments otherwise ;), and I find it
very unlikely that there are truely any useless units in the list.
Before you simply throw away a unit, try using it, and using it in
a variety of ways. It maybe that a unit has no role in your army
*the way you play*, but that doesn't mean that a different player,
using different tactics, may not find that same unit usefull or even
essential.

SM/TL was ripe with people saying units X and Y were useless in the ork
army, and almost every time they were simply wrong. I found excellent
uses for many "worthless" units and considered "worthless" many units
that other ork players considered outstanding. The reason was that I
had developed a style of play which took advantage of some units, but
left others no useful role. I have no doubt that this pattern will
repeat itself in e40k, so don't just crunch numbers to figure out
who's the best. Put the units on the field, try them in different ways,
and _then_ decide who's naughty and nice. The results may suprise
you.

David
Received on Tue Jun 24 1997 - 03:23:31 UTC