Mephiston wrote:
Gavin played all corners too, but with his all out drop army it was probably the correct choice on his part. I guess we need TRC to really comment on what he was hoping to achieve with this thread.
As to individual unit stats I guess everyone has to make their own choices really.
Sorry not trying to start any big argument, was actually driven by trying to pick a guard army for the next tourney. Tried to take Ulani to the last one but couldn't find my shadowswords. Saying that after the test game with them I couldn't see them being an active contender for top spot, simply could be defeated by deployment by many armies. I'd be confident of not losing to them with virtually every army in the game (not losing as opposed to winning mind you). Still i haven't given up and am trying to figure something out, possibly with a formation of executioners as blitz guards and as many conquerors as possible!
But back to the next army the list choice now seems quite limited with only the mech and infantry companies serious choices (well Shadowsword companies have a certain place as well!). The Leman Russ seem to be a luck formation more than anything else. As blitz guards they are pricy and as anything else they are horribly dependant on your luck at rolling activations. A sensible opponent will bm them every turn so you are looking at 3+ to do anything with a formation that is more than 20% of your army.
Combine that with the random commissars which can primarily finish your bm management if you are unlucky and as a side issue the lack of inspiring can really open you up marine armies and then with the slow speed of the army which with a sensible opponent will mean seriously spaced objectives and corners, and it all seems an uphill struggle which is more at risk to bad luck than other armies, not least because the higher activation target and great cost in points for many of the failures.
The whole warhound strat 2/strat 5 thing is just an annoyance in comparison
So yes a general moan as I wanted an army that fitted what I had painted
and that wouldn't be near automatically screwed verses certain armies simply because I rolled a double 1!
Steve54 wrote:
Matt Arnolds stats would seem to point to IGw tank co being his most successful army, Mark Hargrave took IGw tank co to 3 events coming 3rd, 3rd, 1st with only 1 loss from 11 games - his most successful list.
IMO they are difficult to use but when you get the knack of what to surround them with and how to use them they are very effective.
Tiny-Tim wrote:
Playing against Mark & Matt's Tank Companies was scary, as was Dave B's if I remember correctly.
I'd love to know how people use them so well. I'm constantly tripped up by activating them and suffering supressions to the firing. I must say I've never been worried by facing armies with them in. Unless of course I fancy charging my warlord straight at them (and didn't the damn thing either fail to go first or activate or something silly ben?).
Steve54 wrote:
I do find it very strange that this topic has been started by the Imperial Guard NetEA army champion
I still am? I thought I had been replaced!
Quote:
and, as far as I can see, has no distinct relevance to EUK tourneys. Nothing extra has been done by EUK to make the IG in general or IG russ co builds in particular weaker, or other races better, beyond what NetEA has done.
What do you mean? Wasn;t talking about EUK tournies other than maoning about trying to pick a list for one! I'd say there are two changes, the one being removing the 'bad luck' bit from the commissars and the other trying to make Baneblades better, which i see you've commented on later. The only significant difference is really the whole random commissar thing which doesn't even scale well in different sized armies (which is less of an issue with normally playing 3000 point games, still if there were any 2000 point tournies random commissars would be a boost).
Quote:
If there is a problem with IG or IG tanks co it is a wider problem than EUK lists but has never been mentioned previously in any IG review be it EUK, NetEA etc.
True. Its largely occured to me trying to figure out how I would beat armies determined to exploit each of the weaknesses I'd have combined with a spot of bad luck at the beginning.
Steve54 wrote:
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Quote:
as far as I can see, has no distinct relevance to EUK tourneys.
TRC went to an EUK tournament and played 5/6 games on corners.
So TRC is saying the meta game stacks against the Steel Legion list.
Quote:
With regards to the meta game it just isn't true, as several regulars have said, I can only assume TRC was made to play corners when taking IG to FSA as there weren't very many corners games at Britcon (bar his games) which is the only other event he has attended since 2008. The alleged corners dominated Britcon/UK tourney meta game didn't stop Jeridians Ulani Tanks from being in 2nd after 5 games - a list which would suffer far more at corners with lower speed and less long range artillery.
Sorry if I've given this impression, I wasn't (and if I did I wasn't thinking) saying its all corners all the time, simply that I would expect canny opponents to exploit a slow Guard army with a corners game, unless of course they were also fairly slow (certain ork builds, ferals etc). But basical most Marine, Eldar and some Chaos and Ork armies should start with a serious challenge for the guard in covering their own objectives and reaching the opposing blitz.
So as I'm here thinking how to use xyz its just a sinking feeling when i see in my minds eye some bugger telling me corners.
Quote:
Commissars+baneblades have little effect on overall power of the list - with any baneblade stats tried they wouldn't be in any power list
I think the commissars do have a negative effect in 10-20% of your guard games. Get this against the wrong opponent and you need a lot more than skill and this is on top of the normal mis matched army builds meeting (e.g. an air assault army meeting the 3rd Catachin flak regiment).
Baneblades, yes they are second best to shadowswords. I think the Net changes made them an alternative to Leman Russ companies for base defence or mid line attack though. You can argue though about how good it is to push out the russ's from any jobs though in the first place!
Quote:
I've never found modelling or randomness of commissars a problem.
[/quote]
The modelling isn't for me, I just blue tack on commissars to stands and vehicles, but I don't mind it all looking a bit sillier. I can understand players who like the aesthetic side more than me not likely this or the penny approach and gnashing their teeth at having to buy all those extra models for command options (I incidentally do have alternative command stands for all my infantry companies!).
