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

From: Richard Dewsbery <dewsbery_at_...>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 00:30:48 +0100

Ken Taborek wrote:
>
> > > 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.

That is *exactly* what I meant when I said same goes for the Leman Russ.

>
> 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.

60% of the points-value of the Orks had a save - sorry, I should have
been more clear here. During the maths, only the Nobz and warboss were
actually given saving throws.

>
> >
> > 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.

The important thing to remember in all of this is that I was *not*
setting out to compare the two imperial tanks against Ork infantry -
there would be far too many outside effects in any game situation to
make this a worthwhile exercise, as I alluded to when mentioning
stompas, bikes, assault orders etc. The whole point of the exercise was
to compare Land Raiders against Leman Russes, when fighting enemy
infantry rather than each other. To this end, they both faced
*identical* test conditions, and it matters not whether they would have
faced more or less incoming fire from other units, or would have started
shooting soooner in a real game, or would not have won the initiative
three times in a row.

>
> 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.

But this comparison should not just be one unit vs another in a straight
shooting match, as per the original post. Even comparing the
performance of each against a fixed set of conditions, as my comparison
was, tells only a tiny part of the story. Many units *need* tactics,
dictated by player skill, in order to perform properly. Other units
need to be part of an organic detachment to proerly function. These
sort of one-on-one comparisons do no justice to a great many unit
types. And as a result, *any* exercise matching one against the other
is figuring in limitations that are at some times artificial, and at
others downright misleading.

Richard
Richard
Received on Tue Jun 24 1997 - 23:30:48 UTC