Quite often they are actually not seen as much of a threat, if you have a Gargant and/or Stompers on the table they are the ones attracting the heavy fire
A very useful diversionary tactic at times.
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Gun-/Battlefortresses not worth it? http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=17796 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Gun-/Battlefortresses not worth it? |
I have yet to see an Ork army with any Gunfortresses or Battlefortresses. Why? Aren't they worth it? Is it because of the lethal critical? |
|
| Author: | Morgan Vening [ Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Gun-/Battlefortresses not worth it? |
It's not just the lethal Critical. It's the extra lethal critical. Given the low saves of Orks, a Critical could take out many more when it lands on something. Added is the fact that B/G Wagons give a similar aspect without being targetable by TK weapons. Then there is the template weapons. Regardless of which way you interpret disembarkation rules (partly within or totally within 5cm), that's still a lot of units in a very small area. Morgan Vening |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Gun-/Battlefortresses not worth it? |
Forts work okay if you take them into account in your strategy. The Orks have to build their army so the Forts are not high-profile targets. You have to go heavy on WEs and other tough, 4+RA units so the enemy has lots of places where he needs to use MW/TK attacks. If you don't do that and take only one or a few Forts, all the MW/TK will focus on the Forts and they will die fast and gruesomely. Also, EUK and NetEA are recommending a 10 point reduction for Forts. |
|
| Author: | Man of kent [ Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Gun-/Battlefortresses not worth it? |
I use the 10pt reduction and carry two warbands in forts quite happily, the 45cm ranged shot can prove really useful at laying BM, they're a cheap way of mobilising yr warband, small enough (as in, on the table) to be hidden quite well behind scenery and because yr doubling you can always just get the boys to jump out! They're fragile but worth getting used to. R> |
|
| Author: | Justiniel [ Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Gun-/Battlefortresses not worth it? |
Quite often they are actually not seen as much of a threat, if you have a Gargant and/or Stompers on the table they are the ones attracting the heavy fire A very useful diversionary tactic at times. |
|
| Author: | Dughan [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Gun-/Battlefortresses not worth it? |
So far I've used them in two different games with Jimbo down here in Houston. I love them and especially used with my stompa mobs. he concentrates on stompa's and leaves the gun/battle forts alone. then i usually deposit 20+ orks on a objective. usually i back them up with flak wagons and a few other things. i'd love to use all of them i have (two giblits, 3 skullhammma's and three of the newer varieties). lots of crunchy death!!! |
|
| Author: | Morgan Vening [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Gun-/Battlefortresses not worth it? |
Just an aside, I was looking at fielding some Battlefortresses, but I just didn't like the exclusion for Oddboyz. Is there a fluff/balance reason you can't have an Oddboy tinker with the Big Gunz on a Battlefortress? Warband + BattleFortress + Oddboy would be a neat 375pt formation. Mebee I'll try them at an Oddless 325. Given that I've got 5 of the buggers, I just don't see them being useful enough. Gunforts, even with the Transport shrinkage, I just see as being better (and still not good). Morgan Vening |
|
| Author: | Dughan [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Gun-/Battlefortresses not worth it? |
i guess i enjoy them for the fluff of my speed freaks army though its built on the standard ghazkull model.. but i've had some success, but i only have one opponent, so i could be wrong in the long run. But i also don' play tournies and usually play for fun. |
|
| Author: | Blish [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Gun-/Battlefortresses not worth it? |
Quote: (Morgan Vening @ Feb. 10 2010, 02:39 ) Just an aside, I was looking at fielding some Battlefortresses, but I just didn't like the exclusion for Oddboyz. Is there a fluff/balance reason you can't have an Oddboy tinker with the Big Gunz on a Battlefortress? Warband + BattleFortress + Oddboy would be a neat 375pt formation. Mebee I'll try them at an Oddless 325. Given that I've got 5 of the buggers, I just don't see them being useful enough. Gunforts, even with the Transport shrinkage, I just see as being better (and still not good). Morgan Vening Morgan it has suggested by many Ork players that you can replace a Oddboyz onto a Battlefortresses, quite a few months ago. Although I do strongly disagree with it. 
|
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Gun-/Battlefortresses not worth it? |
Well the Soopagun/Supa-Zzapp-Gun model fits very nicely in the back of the Gunfortress model. This can't be coincidence 
|
|
| Author: | Blish [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | Gun-/Battlefortresses not worth it? |
Quote: (BlackLegion @ Feb. 10 2010, 09:20 ) Well the Soopagun/Supa-Zzapp-Gun model fits very nicely in the back of the Gunfortress model. This can't be coincidence I am under the belief that it replaces the big on the Vehicles. 
|
|
| Author: | mnb [ Mon Sep 20, 2010 7:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Gun-/Battlefortresses not worth it? |
i just came across this thread. it's not just the fortresses in this army that stink. this has to be the one army that a lot of units that are used just because we paid lots of money for them: gunfortress, battlefortress, kommandos (only because they have to be purchased in a mob), buggies, and some might say deth koptas. i realize no one wants to tinker with an army that is well balanced but it still sucks having at least 4 or 5 units that i don't want to play with. and how can the army be considered balanced in tourneys if these particular units are never used? |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Mon Sep 20, 2010 7:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Gun-/Battlefortresses not worth it? |
Quote: how can the army be considered balanced in tourneys if these particular units are never used? External balance is different to internal balance, of course. |
|
| Author: | mnb [ Mon Sep 20, 2010 7:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Gun-/Battlefortresses not worth it? |
obviously, but i think you can understand what i meant. would the force still be balanced internally if we threw in 4 more units that weren't worth taking? sure it would. would it still be balanced in tournament? sure it would. but only because those worthless units are not being taken. |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|