Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (
More info?)
"John Hwang" wrote...
> W. B. wrote:
> > "John Hwang" wrote...
>
> >>I would disagree. At 1850+ pts, the FOC is a significant restriction.
> >>I can (and usually do) fill all but 2 or 3 slots.
> >
> > We'll have to agree to disagree, then.
>
> Not exactly, because I actually *could* use more FOC slots at 1850+ pts.
> It may not be a restriction to you, but it *is* a restriction for me.
We have different styles of building a list, then. S'ok, that's what makes the
game interesting.
> My last 1850-pt RTT Eldar army filled 2 HQ, 3 Elite, 6 Troops, and 3
> Heavy slots (14/17 slots). At 2000+ pts, I'd definitely have wanted
> more HQ and Troops slots, but could use the Fast slots to some extent.
My last 1500-pt Eldar list used 8/17 slots. (1 HQ, 2 Elite, 2 Troops, 1 Fast
Attack, 2 Heavy) I don't anticipate being too restricted by the list even at
heavier points values.
> >>>So, everyone announces 3 Codexes in advance, and brings a
> >>>list from 1 of the 3... This has worked for us quite well.
> >>
> >>That's a good, less-expensive solution.
> >
> > Everyone in the group either can't afford the minis, or can't
> > afford the time to put the minis together!
>
> Heh.
Oh, like we're the only ones that's true for.
Personally, I'm planning to
retire in 2 years, so I'm time crunched right now... consequently, some of my
minis are among the more flagrant breaches of the WYSIWYG rule that our group
permits. :-/ Putting together a respectable, tournament legal army is one of
the kazillion things on my post-retirement to-do list.
> >>I think I would typically field 4-6 units of 6 or Tacs at that point
> >>level. But they would be backed by 3-5 units of 5-7 Assault / Devs.
> >>So I would have decent numbers on the board.
> >
> > You'd take *that* many Marines???
>
> Definitely. Point for point, basic Marines are the best bargain in the
> game. More is definitely better.
Good point. Marines are decent at everything, and with that toughness mistakes
are often survivable.
> > On average, that's 54 Marines or so.
>
> Yup. Very resilient, very hard to kill.
The worst army I've ever seen as far as hard to kill was the Necron Phalanx of
Doom. Fifty six Necron models, thirty six of them basic warriors, in a 1500
point list... and every unit, except the scarabs which don't WBB anyway, had one
model within 6" of the Lord with the Resurrection Orb.
> Chaos is inherently more elite than Marines, but basic CSM are still
> excellent. FWIW, my last 1500-pt CSM army had 48 models (including 5
> Termies) *and* a Land Raider. If I had the models, going to 1850, I'd
> field more CSM!
All my 1500 point Chaos lists have had 42-48 models except one, so no argument
there. The one was a pure World Eaters list where I just took leave of my
sanity. For a 1500 point game, I used just six slots on the FoC, and brought 39
models. That one I wanted to see just how obscene a Chosen unit could get, so I
decided to bring some Knights from Hell: A unit of Chosen, all upgraded to
AspChamps so they can purchase wargear. *All* with Mark of Khorne, Juggernauts,
Feel no Pain, pistols and Khornate Chainaxes or better hand to hand weapons. It
ended up being 398 points for five Chosen. Mind you, that's 10 wounds thanks to
the Juggernauts, they ignore most wounds on a 4+ anyway, and get 30 attacks when
charging...
> > There's strength in numbers, true, but I've always been partial
> > to elite troops... Not convinced that you need that many troops,
> > not when they're as good as Marines.
>
> It's never hurt me.
If its silly and it works, it ain't silly.
--
- Ward.
wardcb at earthlink dot net
"There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn
by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out
for themselves." - Will Rogers
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram