So something that I want to start work on as a side project is a Traitor PDF army list. I like the Lost and the Damned list but I really want to be able to play a more "professional" traitor force. I almost always start build PDF formations when I use the LatD army list so I thought "why not" go all the way and build an army list that represents a corrupted PDF force.
The difficulty is going to come with trying to create an army list that is distinct from the LatD list and at the same time Chaotic and corrupted so there can be some elements from the main Chaos army list present.
So my first task is going to be coming up with a descriptive paragraph to define the army, its focus and what it will play like.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
How to beat Eldar: #2
Provide overlapping support
Any isolated formations facing an Eldar army will be destroyed. And quickly at that. The Eldar army is best utilized , IMO, to do FF based assaults with Aspect formations with large amounts of supporting fire from Guardian Warhosts.
So the best way to survive an Eldar attack is to ensure that your formations are placed to provide supporting fire to one another.
As well, don't assume that your larger and/or stronger formations can survive isolated from support. Don't forget that a canny Eldar player can withhold their Farsight ability till the end of the turn to attempt to stick together six consecutive activations enabling them to easily swamp a formation with an assault, supporting fire and possible crossfire and then withdraw those attacking formations to safety. Almost nothing can withstand that type of co-ordinated attack. So don't offer the Eldar player that sort of opportunity.
Any isolated formations facing an Eldar army will be destroyed. And quickly at that. The Eldar army is best utilized , IMO, to do FF based assaults with Aspect formations with large amounts of supporting fire from Guardian Warhosts.
So the best way to survive an Eldar attack is to ensure that your formations are placed to provide supporting fire to one another.
As well, don't assume that your larger and/or stronger formations can survive isolated from support. Don't forget that a canny Eldar player can withhold their Farsight ability till the end of the turn to attempt to stick together six consecutive activations enabling them to easily swamp a formation with an assault, supporting fire and possible crossfire and then withdraw those attacking formations to safety. Almost nothing can withstand that type of co-ordinated attack. So don't offer the Eldar player that sort of opportunity.
Is the player always right?
The old maxim, "The customer is always right" has been applied to game design design discussions a few times. Basically the arguement goes that since players want unit X or upgrade Y that they should get it.
The problem being that often this isn't a choice between players not being able to access a unit but the unit or upgrade in question being official or not. So the question then becomes, should players always get access to popular units or upgrades in official army lists?
I don't think so. One of the aspects of Epic that has been ongoing since the initial playtest versions of the game is the "counts as" rule and the Collectors Models appendixes. Players are often given a wider number of units and weapons to use in friendly games than they are in tournament army lists. Often because the old units or weapons won't be published, the models are rare (or from Foregeworld) or are not balanced or easy to balance.
Building a balanced army list for tournament play is difficult. And some times this requires designers to remove options even if they are popular. But, I think, as long as those options are still available for gamers to use in friendly games that the issue of the "customer" being always right isn't an issue since the units or upgrades are available to players, just not as GT playable units.
The problem being that often this isn't a choice between players not being able to access a unit but the unit or upgrade in question being official or not. So the question then becomes, should players always get access to popular units or upgrades in official army lists?
I don't think so. One of the aspects of Epic that has been ongoing since the initial playtest versions of the game is the "counts as" rule and the Collectors Models appendixes. Players are often given a wider number of units and weapons to use in friendly games than they are in tournament army lists. Often because the old units or weapons won't be published, the models are rare (or from Foregeworld) or are not balanced or easy to balance.
Building a balanced army list for tournament play is difficult. And some times this requires designers to remove options even if they are popular. But, I think, as long as those options are still available for gamers to use in friendly games that the issue of the "customer" being always right isn't an issue since the units or upgrades are available to players, just not as GT playable units.
How to beat Eldar: #1
So the first in a continuing series of posts about how to beat the Eldar
If you can't break a formation don't bother
With the Spirit Stoen rule it is very difficult to break Eldar formations. As such I think that it is advisable to not pursue this as a tactical goal unless you can do so in a single turn.
The more important goal, to my mind, is to make the Eldar incapable of effecting you by wittling down their forces or destroying formations. A Guardian Warhost that is down to two units or an Aspect formation that is down to a small number of units is, I think, a better tactical goal since this then makes those formaions small enough that the Spirit Stone rule isn't as effective (ie they break easier) and they are also less effective in combat and less likely to risk assaults.
If you can't break a formation don't bother
With the Spirit Stoen rule it is very difficult to break Eldar formations. As such I think that it is advisable to not pursue this as a tactical goal unless you can do so in a single turn.
The more important goal, to my mind, is to make the Eldar incapable of effecting you by wittling down their forces or destroying formations. A Guardian Warhost that is down to two units or an Aspect formation that is down to a small number of units is, I think, a better tactical goal since this then makes those formaions small enough that the Spirit Stone rule isn't as effective (ie they break easier) and they are also less effective in combat and less likely to risk assaults.
OGBM army list
The OGBM list has been on a bit of a hiatus recently. The primary problem is that I still don't have any idea what models, if any, will be produced for the list (not surprising really given that Fanatic still hasn't been fully recreated and there is still some discussion of how and what they will be publishing). As such I am hesitant to suggest changes to the list given that it may be necessary to do some radical pruning of the list in the event that the new models for the army won't be made.
I'll be pondering possible solutions to this but the simplest thing to do may be to leave the list as is until such time as we get a better idea of what resources and figs will be available for the list.
That said, the Drop Roks and the Big Krawla will be in any resulting list since they have always been intended to be conversion projects.
I'll be pondering possible solutions to this but the simplest thing to do may be to leave the list as is until such time as we get a better idea of what resources and figs will be available for the list.
That said, the Drop Roks and the Big Krawla will be in any resulting list since they have always been intended to be conversion projects.
CSM 3.5 Recommendations
Going forward with some suggested recommendations for version 3.5 of the CSM list.
This is based on some preliminary comments on version 3.4 of the list.
Helltalon
Two possibilities: a 1BP bomb rack with Ignore Cover or a 2BP bomb rack without Ignore Cover
Titan Critical
Rewording and renaming the Titan critical as per the suggestion in this Forum thread
Forlorn Hope
Making the Forlon Hope only CSM units and not Cult Marines
CSM Retinue
Changing size of Retinue back to 8 units (or possibly 5-8 units) and decreasing allowable Upgrades to a maximum of four
Army Structure
Making the army require one CSM or Bike Retinue in order to "purchase" a support formation. The intent being to retain the infantry heavy horde nature of the army
Assault Company
Making the Assault Company part of the 1/3 Titans/Aircraft Limit
Possible increase in price of the Death Wheel
The changes to the daemons made in 3.4 still need some testing and feedback so there is still some time before a new CSM list will be published
This is based on some preliminary comments on version 3.4 of the list.
Helltalon
Two possibilities: a 1BP bomb rack with Ignore Cover or a 2BP bomb rack without Ignore Cover
Titan Critical
Rewording and renaming the Titan critical as per the suggestion in this Forum thread
Forlorn Hope
Making the Forlon Hope only CSM units and not Cult Marines
CSM Retinue
Changing size of Retinue back to 8 units (or possibly 5-8 units) and decreasing allowable Upgrades to a maximum of four
Army Structure
Making the army require one CSM or Bike Retinue in order to "purchase" a support formation. The intent being to retain the infantry heavy horde nature of the army
Assault Company
Making the Assault Company part of the 1/3 Titans/Aircraft Limit
Possible increase in price of the Death Wheel
The changes to the daemons made in 3.4 still need some testing and feedback so there is still some time before a new CSM list will be published
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
