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

From: Ken Taborek <oberon_at_...>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 08:58:35 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Richard Dewsbery wrote:

> > > 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. [chomp]

It does not. Leman Russ tanks have a 45cm range, same as Land Raiders.

The problem with most of your arguments here is you keep introducing other
elements which throw off the basic analysis.

>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.
[chomp]


OK, that's how you would play them. But your comparison was about Ork
infantry shooting at Land Raiders. Not Ork infantry and Stompers shooting
at and charging into close assault against Land Raiders.

>
> > 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.

Again, you bring in outside influences to your basic analysis. We don't
care what else may be on the table. It could be anything from nothing up
to 10000pts of additional det. What does 140pts of bikes have to do with
anything here? You were comparing 340pts of Land Raiders with 342pts of
Ork infantry. Also, to pick a nit here, in your comparison you state that
60% of the Ork units have a save, when it was actually closer to 38%. If
you factored a 60% save into the Orks longevity, then you gave them a
large advantage which they didn't deserve.

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

Because your example showed the infantry defeating the Land Raiders. On
reading it again, I see that if the Land Raiders win initiative, they win
the engagement. But, to pick a nit here, in your comparison you state
that 60% of the Ork units have a save, when it was actually closer to 38%.
If you factored a 60% save into the Orks longevity, then you gave them a
large advantage which they didn't deserve.

>
> > 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.

It wasn't a stand up fight because I gave every possible advantage to the
Leman Russ tanks. As I said before. In most games, one player won't win
the initiative 4 times in a row. I also (to repeat myself again) rounded
all casualty and BM reduction rolls in favor of the Leman Russ det, and
against the Land Raider det. The Leman Russ det died to the man (tank?),
and left 2 Land Raiders alive. In a more fair comparison, I would expect
the Land Raider det to have even more units left at the end of the duel.

I will have to agree with you that terrain, player skill, luck, and other
factors will definatly have an inpact on the results. But if you use a
little razor action to pare off these influences, the basic value of the
units can be compared.

--Ken
Received on Tue Jun 24 1997 - 12:58:35 UTC