With some exceptions, armour in EA is crap. Infantry is best, with war engine support. Then artillery and Landers. Tanks come last.

The reason is the dangerous terrain rules?

Disagreed.

Armour is not crap, however it does need infantry support to be at its most effective.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

*removed*

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Is there any need to be so confrontational frogbear?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

ok.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I disagree with the OP. I get excellent mileage out of my armor. My Steel Legion armies always revolve around a core of tank companies, and I tend to do better than 50/50 with them. A 4+ RA with 4+ FF is a killer in Engage. Inside 45cm, a tank company will match just about anything in AT firepower, and inside 30cm, they add brutal AP to that tally.

I always find I do better using armor agressively, closing with weight of fire, and engaging to finish. As E&C says, add a mech inf formation as the engager, with the tanks in support, and you get even better return,

Eldar tanks are also best used as prep and supporting fire for mechanized Aspect formations. I would guess similar tactics would work for most other armies. Though my experience with instead of against them is limited.

They are certainly not crap, they just need to be applied correctly, and in a less straightforward manner than Infantry.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

The OP did say "with some exceptions" and I would suggest that the IG armour (specifically the Leman Russ) is one of those exceptions.

SM armour is considered pretty poor (you see few predador or land raider formations).
Ork tanks are poor (taken only for the odd boy upgrades and often there are more flakwagons than gunwagons).
BL armoured companies are also rare.
Eldar tanks are also usually taken mainly as a source of AA (falcons with firestorms). How often do you see falcons taken just for the falcons? And I have yet to see a report with a prism formation.
Tau Hammerheads have been argued as perennial under-performers.

So I think the OP has a fair point.

I am not sure it is purely down to dangerous terrain though. Certainly terrain has an effect on the performance of armour. For infantry terrain often provides a positive benefit (in terms of cover to hit modifier and cover saves) while at the same time it often has a negative effect on armour (blocking LOS and movement in dangerous/impassable terrain).

I think the way that armour works also has an effect on this though. Armour generally has a higher cost per unit than infantry, while having generally similar offensive assault capability (i.e. similar CC, FF & AR numbers). So for a assault oriented game like EA armour represents less value than infantry.

In theory this is balanced by the higher shooting power of armour, but the way suppression works means that armour again suffers more on a point for point basis (one suppressed infantry unit represents less loss of firepower than one armour unit). War engines, of course, are much harder to suppress and so avoid that issue for the most part.

I think many perceived problems with armor are down to application. Armor is considered a Shooting unit. Shooting in EA is not how games are won.

I can't say I ever take Falcons solely for the AA, though the metagame in these parts is not air focused. I always take Flak whenever practicable, but I never take a formation solely for it's flak.

I can take an Aspect Warhost with Wave Serpents, 6 Dire Avengers, and 2 Dark Reaper Exarchs for 550pt. Add a Falcon Troupe with twin Firestorms for 300. Double in to an enemy formation with the Falcons from inside of 85cm. That's 1 1/3 AP hits and 2 2/3 AT. And an automatic BM. Then Engage from inside of 50cm with your Aspects. That's 16x 4+ FF, 4x 3+ FF, and two Inspiring from the Aspects, and an additional 6x 4+ FF from the Falcons.

Same deal for Mech Inf and a Tank Company, or two Tank Companies. Armor is support, either for infantry or other armor. Using a hammer is useless without an anvil.

Superheavies may not supress easily, but a Baneblade Company has 1/3 the firepower of a Russ Company outside 30cm, and around half inside. Shadowswords should not be taken in Company, IMO. They are the scalpels for the units the hammers cannot harm.

Again, I speak from the POV of the two armies I've played extensively. There is a local Ork player who takes 'Uge BBs, 'Uge KoSs, and mounted Big Warbands as the triumvirate his army is built around. His record is not shabby. My feeling is that armor is harder to apply effectively than infantry, but applied correctly it is worth it.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

SG - In your example of Falcon usage why would you not just use a cheaper formation that puts out the same amount of support fire?

I understand that there are ways to use armour in an assault/assault support manner. But that does not change the fact that the points you pay for armour are based on the amount of SHOOTING power that those units have.

Could you expand a little on this view please Alan.

Which are the exceptions ?,Why do you find the dangerous terrain rule causing such problems?,Is it all armour (APC's) or just tanks (which ? Marine,IG,Eldar or Orks) in general ?.

It could just be they don't suit your play style, I personally think Whirlwinds aren't worthwhile in a Marine list,I wouldn't take them if they dropped to 200 points,but most love 'em.

I'd note that Predator Destructors are great.

Double or Triple into a crossfire-claiming position at the end of turn 1, win the initiative (Likely with Marines) then Sustain Fire for your first order in turn 2 and you'll do a lot of damage.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Destructors? With the Autocannon and Heavy Bolters?

Uh, got the name backwards. Meant Annihilators.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

well, when you consider "real life"(TM), tanks on their own have few and specialised applications (tank battles of Kursk in WW2 and Dessert Storm (he he he) spring to mind) and generally are at extreme risk without infantry support, either foot slogging or mechanised. So the Epic system does seem to mirror that quite well. As SG states, if used well in a combined arms tactic (again, as in Real Life), armour can be brutally effective.
I strongly believe that each unit type in Epic has it's own strength and weaknesses, and the key to winning is maximising your strengths and your opponent's weaknesses. And having my 3 magical orange dice

Because there are situations that do benefit from having a lot of firepower at your disposal.

A Falcon troupe can get 8 AT5+ and 4 AT6+ shots at 45cm on the double. Out of cover, shoot at enemy armor, back to cover. From 80cm. You can hamper a mechanized formations mobility, or target a Russ company from beyond BC range and out of LOS.

The only thing cheaper with comparable speed and FF (that I can think of) is the Windrider host at 200pt. Excellent unit in Support/Engage, but it has no versitility. Need to lay BM? Can't without knocking the FF down, and then only for token fire. Need to target armor/transports? No shooting. The extra hundred for heavy AT and fair AP fire, plus devestating AA is a no brainer IMO.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.