| Quote (primarch @ 11 June 2006 (07:45)) |
| Hi! Why is it broken? Primarch |
It isn't, it is just odd.
dafrca
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| More Insanity http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5629 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Ilushia [ Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | More Insanity |
And... In keeping with my ongoing efforts to create 'broken' lists of every army out there (And likely failing horribly at most of them, but it's entertaining and beats spending all day being bored). Here's a Tau army I constructed earlier today, mostly as a joke: Fire Warriors (200) Fire Warriors (200) Fire Warriors (200) Scorpionfish (225) w/ Supreme Commander (100) Scorpionfish (225) Scorpionfish (225) Scorpionfish (225) Scorpionfish (225) Scorpionfish (225) AX-1-0 (225) AX-1-0 (225) Hero Class Cruiser (150) w/ Gravitic Tracer Salvo (50) Total: 2,700 Points. 9 Ground activations, 2 Air activations and 1 Starship. 3 formations which garrison, then push forwards (preferably into terrain) and offer AP fire, plus spotters with marker-lights. The Hero can punch up War Engines at long range, soften them up for the AX-1-0, and the Gravitic tracers can do some nasty damage to standard troops. Still probably not all that great. But it's an interesting prospect, IMHO. |
|
| Author: | dafrca [ Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | More Insanity |
Interestinglist, but I do not think it is broken. dafrca |
|
| Author: | Tactica [ Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | More Insanity |
Having a hard time seeing this as broken. If you give it a try though, let us know. |
|
| Author: | primarch [ Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | More Insanity |
Hi! Why is it broken? Primarch |
|
| Author: | dafrca [ Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:18 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | More Insanity | ||
It isn't, it is just odd. dafrca |
|||
| Author: | Ilushia [ Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | More Insanity |
I'd consider something capable of putting out 24 4+ MW shots at 75cm range, not needing LoS if there're Firewarriors close enough, to be fairly insane, myself. The XV-1-0 units can take out RA/Titan targets with ease as well. And against massed low-to-no save infantry... Well that's what submunition missiles are. Start garrisoning the Firewarriors forwards. Put them on Overwatch. Move the one not on Overwatch at Double to get into markerlight range (Preferably while in cover if possible). Retain with the Supreme Commander, have him declare Coordinated Fire with two of the other Scorpionfish... All sustain fire. On a 6'x4' table if they're playing edge-to-edge then they can fire from the center-point of one edge all the way to both diagonals to the corners. So there's really nowhere you can hide from them at all. For better results you'd probably want to double-up the Scorpionfish into 3 units of 2 each. It'll cut back your Activations numbers by quite a bit. But it'll also allow you to potentially Coordinate Fire with all 3 units of them at once. Maybe it's just me, but I'd consider a force which can drop 24 4+ MW hits with no LoS, no Slow Fire and long enough range to reach both board-corners to be fairly crazy. Don't even have to deal with BP weapons and positioning the markers. |
|
| Author: | clausewitz [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | More Insanity |
If you co-ordinate fire then you can only hit one formation. And your opponent would be wise to do his best to keep out of markerlight range of the FWs (some overwatch would help here). This list would be hugely invulnerable to air assault/teleport type attacks. Loose initiative on turn one and you could be down to one FW formation left. It could do well against certain opponents, but it would be a really boring list to play (with and against). |
|
| Author: | dafrca [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | More Insanity |
I do not think every one trick pony to be broken. Would you, the first time, give someone a fit? Maybe. If I thought you were going to bring it to our games can I think of a few items to give you fits? Yes. To me, broken is a combo that, almost regardless of what I do, it will win. That is broken. This list is not a sure thing. dafrca |
|
| Author: | Legion 4 [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | More Insanity |
I'm not a fan of counting "activations" ... Come up with a plan ... fight the battle, play the game. ?I added activation from my first game of SM1 in '90 - it works ! But?to use an old G/W term ... "it's beardy", IMO to count activations. And like I said, we been playing that way forever. ?I don't see a problem with your TO&E ... ? ?But DWWFY ... |
|
| Author: | Ilushia [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:55 am ] | ||
| Post subject: | More Insanity | ||
It's not about making a one-trick-pony you can defeat regularly in combat. It's about making a list which walking into a blind game against an unknown enemy will give that enemy fits. Consider bringing a 'balanced' force to a tournament... Do you think a standard, balanced force could beat it? Would it be very hard? Sure you could design a specific counter to it, but you can do that for almost any list someone cares to cook up if you have time to prepare for it. That's not the point. The point is that if you bring the list to a closed tournament where no one knows ahead of time what anyone else will bring, then you're looking at a fairly scary force. This is the basic complaint about the AMTL and OGBM lists as well: It's not that they can't be beaten. It's not that most armies have problems fielding enough TK or MW attacks to beat them. It's that most armies don't field that many in a standard army list. They CAN, but they usually don't. You see this a LOT in 40K scale as well. Most people coming to tournaments make 'take all comers' lists. Then you have the handful of people who show up with lists designed to break 'take all comers' enemies. Lists which are meant to exploit a specific area of their list to the extreme and thus the 'take all comers' list won't have sufficient defenses against that specific kind of force to defeat them (usually). A truly 'broken' force is almost impossible to create, since SOME list SOMEWHERE SOMEHOW is going to be able to defeat it consistently with some pre-tailoring. |
|||
| Author: | dafrca [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:28 am ] | ||
| Post subject: | More Insanity | ||
Three things and then I will bow out of this conversation as it seems to be growing beyond the original content/scope. 1: Broken means it wins regardless. The combo is unstoppable. This list is not unstoppable. 2: Could my standard IG list fight this army and win, Yes. Would it be hard? Well that would be more about you as a player then the list. 3: Does the fact that a couple of Min-Maxers bring lists they believe will win against everyone bother me? No. Why? Because too often they do not win the tournaments. The original idea presented was this list was broken. It is not. Is it a fair and balanced list? Of course not. Would some armies have a hard time with this list? Yes. But it is not unstoppable and it is not a auto-win list. So I believe I have made my thoughts clear and I accept others may disagree. That is OK. In any case, have a great week. dafrca |
|||
| Author: | Ilushia [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | More Insanity |
You're probably right. Guess I'll go back to the drawing board then. My general goal is to create lists which are things people generally wouldn't try to field, which seem like they would be reasonably powerful. Usually things which challenge the way that people play the game normally. It's like 'When playing a miniatures game based on the Americal Revolution, make sure you attempt an uphill charge into trenches at least once or twice' kinda thing. Since it's not hard to make an army list or set of rules which results in lists or tactics which shouldn't win, but do. And do so consistently. The 'all air' Space Marine army is a good example of this. Really shouldn't win, but in almost any situation I can think to put it in short of a list which is specifically built to kill it, it does very very well. |
|
| Author: | dafrca [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:01 am ] | ||
| Post subject: | More Insanity | ||
If this was your goal, then I say you did succeed.  I do not think most people would field this list, and this list is powerful. I think playing against this list, assuming a player with reasonable amount of tactical skill, I would be hard pressed to win. So based on the stated goal, I believe you did it.  dafrca |
|||
| Author: | thurse [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | More Insanity |
Anyway, playtesting an army with extreme lists is always a great thing, and I would like to do it myself, had I the time. I can show overpowered units and can help our beloved ACs balancing the list ( see termagaunt terror in the nid forum ). |
|
| Author: | Legion 4 [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | More Insanity |
Daf is on target ...
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|