Re: [Epic] E40K:Tyranids Suck!!!

From: David Lado <lado_at_...>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 11:55:50 -0400

>>>Supporting fire is easly done with armies that can shoot or have air
>>>power that can survive an intercept.. something that the tyranid army
>>>does not have!
>>
>>What do you call biovores and dactylis'? They both have 60 cm range
>>and the biovores can ride assault spawn. These troops can deploy into
>>a position to support even a fast-moving assault force. If you are
>>using spore-pods, you would be well advised not to drop on units
>>outside your support reach (unless you have an overwhelming advantage
>>in numbers and psychers).
>
>I agree that dactylis' are decent artillery but that's all they are..
>biovores just give 1 bm on a 4+ on a d6 sure i could play the
>disrupt game all day

But it's even better to play the disrupt+assault game. In the example
you gave (genestealers vs whirlwinds), if you had put one more disrupt
marker on the marines than they had on you, it would have changed the
outcome of the battle from a tie to a victory for you by 2. Not only
that, but the +2 shift (+1 for you, -1 for SMs because they lose their
+1) would have given you a +6 modifier, insuring automatic victory.
Not bad for a bunch of 20 pt infantry.

>but even thou thery're in the infantry section they are artillery
>which means they could not ride in malefactors (assault spawn now).

All infantry can ride in transports, including support weapons (SM
and eldar AT platforms) and field artillery (dactylis, pulsa rokkits).
Check page 7 of the rule book. It explicitly says field guns are
infantry. You can play a house rule saying otherwise, of course,
but it's perfectly legal (and reasonable) to carry/tow field guns
on transports.

>>Hmmmmm, land raiders are a tough nut for anyone (except those engines
>>of vaul seemsed to make short work of them :). Taking some extra
>>synapse creaters would certainly help (nothing cheesy abut taking
>>3 tyrannid broods, it's not like they're free). Also, using biovores
>>to pin them in place might help, allowing the assault troops to
>>hopefully hide behind terrain as they advance.
>
>that's if you can get the opponent to let you put as much terrain as
>possible...

Good point. Land raiders have enough advantages as is. You should
definitely put enough terrain on the table to maneuver a few unit
around. I think more terrain makes for more fun. Sitting on an
open board on overwatch/first fire orders is much fun for anybody,
plus it restricts tactics and unit composition (blah). Tell your
opponent if he doesn't put a reasonable amount of terrain on the
board, you'll eat his brains :).

Seriously, I don't know what you guys have available, but I
discovered (by accident really) that a devious way to increase
the amount of terrain on the board is to make some nice terrain.
I have yet to meet a player that would pass up the opportunity
to put spiffy terrain on table just to gain a tactical advantage.

David
Received on Sun Jul 20 1997 - 15:55:50 UTC