|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:16 am
Nuclearwinter if i could get 1500 guardsmen in a single game then i'd win everytime. Unless you were up against a tank platoon...
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:51 am
[Fraggle] Nuclearwinter if i could get 1500 guardsmen in a single game then i'd win everytime. Unless you were up against a tank platoon...
ok, so 1000 guardsmen and I'll have 50 melta guns in the army. or 30 somthing laz cannons. 33 to be exact. you can send an army of gold plated Monoliths for all i care. Statisticly i'd be hitting with about 16 shots each turn, and at least 5 will glance or penetrate. each turn.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:25 pm
Nuclearwinter [Fraggle] Nuclearwinter if i could get 1500 guardsmen in a single game then i'd win everytime. Unless you were up against a tank platoon...
ok, so 1000 guardsmen and I'll have 50 melta guns in the army. or 30 somthing laz cannons. 33 to be exact. you can send an army of gold plated Monoliths for all i care. Statisticly i'd be hitting with about 16 shots each turn, and at least 5 will glance or penetrate. each turn. But only if you were within range, and hadn't been shot apart by the basilisks first. smile Lets see... meltagun: 12" lascannon: 48" earthshaker cannon: 240"do the math children biggrin even with barrage fire*, you are going to take heavy fire before you can get close enough to shoot with whatever you've got left (and even then, they could be behind cover. I'd certainly keep anti-infantry tanks close as well, just in case) *even without you've still got 120" range to deal with
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:34 pm
Guess Range weapons are horribly inaccurate. I can call the exact distant to within an inch, but the fact is that even that inch of variation limits damage along with the corresponding 2 in 3 chance of haveing your round plunge somewhere you don't want it. Groundpounders have a difficult time with armor, but a nice deployment and a small mobile group can handle most problems in a lovely fashion.
As for Armor, you can go for a Chaos variant and basically loot some Chaos sprues and tack on symbols of Chaos Undivided and crap. You'd be like the IG, except pointy. Historical forces are also something to consider; I've seen some tanks mimicing the colors of WWII vechiles and they are quite nice. Hell, my Leman Russ's new color scheme makes it bear a decided resemblance to a WWI Mark IV.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:59 pm
Vanghar Nuclearwinter [Fraggle] Nuclearwinter if i could get 1500 guardsmen in a single game then i'd win everytime. Unless you were up against a tank platoon...
ok, so 1000 guardsmen and I'll have 50 melta guns in the army. or 30 somthing laz cannons. 33 to be exact. you can send an army of gold plated Monoliths for all i care. Statisticly i'd be hitting with about 16 shots each turn, and at least 5 will glance or penetrate. each turn. But only if you were within range, and hadn't been shot apart by the basilisks first. smile Lets see... meltagun: 12" lascannon: 48" earthshaker cannon: 240"do the math children biggrin even with barrage fire*, you are going to take heavy fire before you can get close enough to shoot with whatever you've got left (and even then, they could be behind cover. I'd certainly keep anti-infantry tanks close as well, just in case) *even without you've still got 120" range to deal with I've never played on a board that was even that large. but even so I can just spread out and minimize the dammage, plus any thing over 120" will be scattering 2d6, If i spread out enough, chances are you won't hit anything except for the odd direct hit here an there. of course in a 1500 point game you would have 12 basiliks though.... so i guess i'd have to give you the benifit of the doubt there... but oh wait, the guard codex was designed by idiots, all my guardsmen have deepstrike for free now thanks to doctrine upgrades. Nice. Goodbye armor.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:18 am
Nuclearwinter Vanghar Nuclearwinter [Fraggle] Nuclearwinter if i could get 1500 guardsmen in a single game then i'd win everytime. Unless you were up against a tank platoon...
ok, so 1000 guardsmen and I'll have 50 melta guns in the army. or 30 somthing laz cannons. 33 to be exact. you can send an army of gold plated Monoliths for all i care. Statisticly i'd be hitting with about 16 shots each turn, and at least 5 will glance or penetrate. each turn. But only if you were within range, and hadn't been shot apart by the basilisks first. smile Lets see... meltagun: 12" lascannon: 48" earthshaker cannon: 240"do the math children biggrin even with barrage fire*, you are going to take heavy fire before you can get close enough to shoot with whatever you've got left (and even then, they could be behind cover. I'd certainly keep anti-infantry tanks close as well, just in case) *even without you've still got 120" range to deal with I've never played on a board that was even that large. but even so I can just spread out and minimize the dammage, plus any thing over 120" will be scattering 2d6, If i spread out enough, chances are you won't hit anything except for the odd direct hit here an there. of course in a 1500 point game you would have 12 basiliks though.... so i guess i'd have to give you the benifit of the doubt there... but oh wait, the guard codex was designed by idiots, all my guardsmen have deepstrike for free now thanks to doctrine upgrades. Nice. Goodbye armor. No he'd have three basalisks assuming hes playing by the rules against this 1000 gaurdsmen misinterpretation of the rules.
Further despite the innacuracy, thats still 9 gaurdsmen to get through to get the tank destroying melta-y goodness in the squad. That much infantry would be enough to swamp any army, including a tank heavy one.
So yes "do the math children biggrin ".
---
How is a drop army being an option make the gaurd codex designed by idiots? Elaboration would help you nicely. And something being anti armor hardly makes it something to be called "designed by idiots", tanks are only one aspect of some of the armies in the game.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:11 pm
King Kento Nuclearwinter Vanghar Nuclearwinter [Fraggle] Nuclearwinter if i could get 1500 guardsmen in a single game then i'd win everytime. Unless you were up against a tank platoon...
ok, so 1000 guardsmen and I'll have 50 melta guns in the army. or 30 somthing laz cannons. 33 to be exact. you can send an army of gold plated Monoliths for all i care. Statisticly i'd be hitting with about 16 shots each turn, and at least 5 will glance or penetrate. each turn. But only if you were within range, and hadn't been shot apart by the basilisks first. smile Lets see... meltagun: 12" lascannon: 48" earthshaker cannon: 240"do the math children biggrin even with barrage fire*, you are going to take heavy fire before you can get close enough to shoot with whatever you've got left (and even then, they could be behind cover. I'd certainly keep anti-infantry tanks close as well, just in case) *even without you've still got 120" range to deal with I've never played on a board that was even that large. but even so I can just spread out and minimize the dammage, plus any thing over 120" will be scattering 2d6, If i spread out enough, chances are you won't hit anything except for the odd direct hit here an there. of course in a 1500 point game you would have 12 basiliks though.... so i guess i'd have to give you the benifit of the doubt there... but oh wait, the guard codex was designed by idiots, all my guardsmen have deepstrike for free now thanks to doctrine upgrades. Nice. Goodbye armor. No he'd have three basalisks assuming hes playing by the rules against this 1000 gaurdsmen misinterpretation of the rules.
Further despite the innacuracy, thats still 9 gaurdsmen to get through to get the tank destroying melta-y goodness in the squad. That much infantry would be enough to swamp any army, including a tank heavy one.
So yes "do the math children biggrin "./color]For one, with 1000 Guardsmen you're going to need a pretty big board, unless you want them so squashed in they're like fish in a barrel. And if I was to actually field a seige regiment, I could get a total of eight basilisks as troop choices. Or a normal armoured company, with (indeed) three basilisks, but a further 5 vanquishers with 96" range. I suppose both have advantages: tanks were never meant to go up against light infantry anyway, so real comparison is meaningless. To be honest, I'm not sure who I'd put my money on with tanks vs. light infantry - I've never seen it played out. Although I did once defeat a necron army (lord, warriors, plus destroyers and plenty of scarabs) with a single Vanquisher, although to be fair the opponent was an idiot and kept all his troops together - so a single shell took out a fair chunk each turn, so he just phased out after turn three.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:53 pm
Vanghar King Kento Nuclearwinter Vanghar Nuclearwinter ok, so 1000 guardsmen and I'll have 50 melta guns in the army. or 30 somthing laz cannons. 33 to be exact. you can send an army of gold plated Monoliths for all i care. Statisticly i'd be hitting with about 16 shots each turn, and at least 5 will glance or penetrate. each turn. But only if you were within range, and hadn't been shot apart by the basilisks first. smile Lets see... meltagun: 12" lascannon: 48" earthshaker cannon: 240"do the math children biggrin even with barrage fire*, you are going to take heavy fire before you can get close enough to shoot with whatever you've got left (and even then, they could be behind cover. I'd certainly keep anti-infantry tanks close as well, just in case) *even without you've still got 120" range to deal with I've never played on a board that was even that large. but even so I can just spread out and minimize the dammage, plus any thing over 120" will be scattering 2d6, If i spread out enough, chances are you won't hit anything except for the odd direct hit here an there. of course in a 1500 point game you would have 12 basiliks though.... so i guess i'd have to give you the benifit of the doubt there... but oh wait, the guard codex was designed by idiots, all my guardsmen have deepstrike for free now thanks to doctrine upgrades. Nice. Goodbye armor. No he'd have three basalisks assuming hes playing by the rules against this 1000 gaurdsmen misinterpretation of the rules.
Further despite the innacuracy, thats still 9 gaurdsmen to get through to get the tank destroying melta-y goodness in the squad. That much infantry would be enough to swamp any army, including a tank heavy one.
So yes "do the math children biggrin "./color]For one, with 1000 Guardsmen you're going to need a pretty big board, unless you want them so squashed in they're like fish in a barrel. And if I was to actually field a seige regiment, I could get a total of eight basilisks as troop choices. Or a normal armoured company, with (indeed) three basilisks, but a further 5 vanquishers with 96" range. I suppose both have advantages: tanks were never meant to go up against light infantry anyway, so real comparison is meaningless. To be honest, I'm not sure who I'd put my money on with tanks vs. light infantry - I've never seen it played out. Although I did once defeat a necron army (lord, warriors, plus destroyers and plenty of scarabs) with a single Vanquisher, although to be fair the opponent was an idiot and kept all his troops together - so a single shell took out a fair chunk each turn, so he just phased out after turn three. i guess you're all just ignoring the fact that I can deep strike them? and i'd rather have a smaller board, it means his tanks lose the advantage of their range (I'd have laz cannons shooing sooner)
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:20 pm
Vanghar King Kento No he'd have three basalisks assuming hes playing by the rules against this 1000 gaurdsmen misinterpretation of the rules.
Further despite the innacuracy, thats still 9 gaurdsmen to get through to get the tank destroying melta-y goodness in the squad. That much infantry would be enough to swamp any army, including a tank heavy one.
So yes "do the math children biggrin ". For one, with 1000 Guardsmen you're going to need a pretty big board, unless you want them so squashed in they're like fish in a barrel. And if I was to actually field a seige regiment, I could get a total of eight basilisks as troop choices. Or a normal armoured company, with (indeed) three basilisks, but a further 5 vanquishers with 96" range. I suppose both have advantages: tanks were never meant to go up against light infantry anyway, so real comparison is meaningless. To be honest, I'm not sure who I'd put my money on with tanks vs. light infantry - I've never seen it played out. Although I did once defeat a necron army (lord, warriors, plus destroyers and plenty of scarabs) with a single Vanquisher, although to be fair the opponent was an idiot and kept all his troops together - so a single shell took out a fair chunk each turn, so he just phased out after turn three. The reason I say this is due to watching so many armored company armies be taken down by basic infantry. Though agreed, wed only knowed until its played out.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:26 pm
Nuclearwinter i guess you're all just ignoring the fact that I can deep strike them? and i'd rather have a smaller board, it means his tanks lose the advantage of their range (I'd have laz cannons shooing sooner) I had addressed your comment of the gaurd codex being made by idiots in a previouse post. Also "you're all", theres only three of us discussing this, and Im on the side of infantry winning.
"How is a drop army being an option make the gaurd codex designed by idiots? Elaboration would help you nicely. And something being anti armor hardly makes it something to be called "designed by idiots", tanks are only one aspect of some of the armies in the game."
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:42 pm
Though I am a huge fan of Heavy Armour and have a full Armoured Company. The infantry would win. Normal if this a dscussion in the store I would say the tank would win out of spite Now their is cases where the Armor could win but it must be a well played thing with correct variations of tanks. But 12 Basalisks probley wouldnt cause enough damage even if you hit a squad dead on with each shot the death toll would still not be as great as you expect it will. Where Armor has a pretty static deployment Infantry has the ability to drop and pop. All they have to do in deepstrike in and pop your tank wit meltas. Hell even plasmas wold work if they jumped in from your rear.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:07 am
King Kento Nuclearwinter i guess you're all just ignoring the fact that I can deep strike them? and i'd rather have a smaller board, it means his tanks lose the advantage of their range (I'd have laz cannons shooing sooner) I had addressed your comment of the gaurd codex being made by idiots in a previouse post. Also "you're all", theres only three of us discussing this, and Im on the side of infantry winning.
"How is a drop army being an option make the gaurd codex designed by idiots? Elaboration would help you nicely. And something being anti armor hardly makes it something to be called "designed by idiots", tanks are only one aspect of some of the armies in the game."I don't like the guard codex, because they have so many useless doctrines. You're entire army gets deep strike for free? that just seems silly to me. Oh and I didn't see you adress that comment in an eariler post, I must have missed it, sorry. But I think the guard could have been designed a LITTLE better in terms of the doctrine upgrades. They weren't very restricting and you never made an amry that was THAT unique. For example, I always have an army that has close order drill just because I have the extra doctrine, not because i need or want it. They did the same thing with the marine codex, there's no limitations, so no real variety.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:11 am
Nuclearwinter I don't like the guard codex, because they have so many useless doctrines. You're entire army gets deep strike for free? that just seems silly to me. Oh and I didn't see you adress that comment in an eariler post, I must have missed it, sorry. But I think the guard could have been designed a LITTLE better in terms of the doctrine upgrades. They weren't very restricting and you never made an amry that was THAT unique. For example, I always have an army that has close order drill just because I have the extra doctrine, not because i need or want it. They did the same thing with the marine codex, there's no limitations, so no real variety. I'm going to have to disagree heavily with you. Now, normally an army is either very shooty (Tau) or very choppy? (Orks) and sometimes they have a good mix of things (Marines). However, the Imperial Guard (and Eldar, for that matter) is an incredibly flexible army. Have you ever seen a close combat Guard army? Give them Warrior Weapons, Hardened Fighters, and Deepstrike, getting your normal troops to tie up enemy troops in time for things like Ogryns, Rough Riders, and/or Command Squads time to get in there, which will tear up enemies. Hell, they might not even have time to get there if you take Close Order drill and keep them in it, with their +1 Initiative they'll be at par with most enemies. Alternatively, you could take Sharpshooters and Heavy Weapons Platoons, and give them carapace armour to sruvive and Storm Troopers to add more firepower. You'd just have to sit back and fire down the lane to destroy opponents, which would be well coupled with some artillery with Guess range, to flush out enemies who you can't hit normally. In addition, you can make an armoured company, which plays entirely differently from either option above, using almost entirely vehicles to do their dirty work. That's just a matter of finding the right balance of units into a working fashion. I really don't know what you mean by saying that there is no real variety to the Guard codex. Sure, they made it so that you can't have every unit available to the guard, but that does not mean that there is no variety from army to army. ((Oh, and if anyone can tell me what the stats are for the Heavy Mortar, or tell me where I can find it, I'd really appriciate it.))
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:12 am
Nuclearwinter King Kento Nuclearwinter i guess you're all just ignoring the fact that I can deep strike them? and i'd rather have a smaller board, it means his tanks lose the advantage of their range (I'd have laz cannons shooing sooner) I had addressed your comment of the gaurd codex being made by idiots in a previouse post. Also "you're all", theres only three of us discussing this, and Im on the side of infantry winning.
"How is a drop army being an option make the gaurd codex designed by idiots? Elaboration would help you nicely. And something being anti armor hardly makes it something to be called "designed by idiots", tanks are only one aspect of some of the armies in the game."I don't like the guard codex, because they have so many useless doctrines. You're entire army gets deep strike for free? that just seems silly to me. Oh and I didn't see you adress that comment in an eariler post, I must have missed it, sorry. But I think the guard could have been designed a LITTLE better in terms of the doctrine upgrades. They weren't very restricting and you never made an amry that was THAT unique. For example, I always have an army that has close order drill just because I have the extra doctrine, not because i need or want it. They did the same thing with the marine codex, there's no limitations, so no real variety. Uh... your whole army dosent get it. Your infantry gets it, not the whole army
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:09 am
Reddemon Nuclearwinter King Kento Nuclearwinter i guess you're all just ignoring the fact that I can deep strike them? and i'd rather have a smaller board, it means his tanks lose the advantage of their range (I'd have laz cannons shooing sooner) I had addressed your comment of the gaurd codex being made by idiots in a previouse post. Also "you're all", theres only three of us discussing this, and Im on the side of infantry winning.
"How is a drop army being an option make the gaurd codex designed by idiots? Elaboration would help you nicely. And something being anti armor hardly makes it something to be called "designed by idiots", tanks are only one aspect of some of the armies in the game."I don't like the guard codex, because they have so many useless doctrines. You're entire army gets deep strike for free? that just seems silly to me. Oh and I didn't see you adress that comment in an eariler post, I must have missed it, sorry. But I think the guard could have been designed a LITTLE better in terms of the doctrine upgrades. They weren't very restricting and you never made an amry that was THAT unique. For example, I always have an army that has close order drill just because I have the extra doctrine, not because i need or want it. They did the same thing with the marine codex, there's no limitations, so no real variety. Uh... your whole army dosent get it. Your infantry gets it, not the whole army just imagine if I could deepstrike tanks. There is a mission that lets you do that I cant remember but a good friend of mine told my of it and he is a GW Outrider. Just Imagine the possiblitys. Mechanized Warrior Weapons Ogryns Independent Commisars I can see some Major hurt coming out of that it would just have problems with Armor The possiblitys for guard are nearly endless. Want the play them as Tech Guard you got it Bionics (its not called this but it give them a 5+ invul save) Carapace Armor Enigseers mechanized the potential for variety is out there. It just has to be recognized.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|