Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hello once again,

Here is a game I played this afternoon.  It was all the skimmer on skimmer action I could handle.  Enjoy!

http://zombievisions.blogspot.com/

First of all, nice Battlereport, and I really mean that.

Sad thing to see the Eldar Army take such a beating, so some questions:

1. Did you move the Skimmers more than 6" in the first moving phase? It doesn't say so in the description and It seems that the vehicles are just moved a little bit to the side.

2. How big was the table?

3. Any comments on the Battle, tactical or armylist mistakes?

Thanks again!

Greets
Schepp himself

I was his Tau opponent, so I'll give my insight and answer your questions Schepp.

1- He did move his vehicles over 6" the first turn...it doesn't look like much because the whole mass of vehicles moved, but they did. He just got a little unlucky, failing to do anything to my hammerhead, while I took down two skimmers in the first turn.

2- Regular 6'x4' table

3- All sorts of comments to make! It's been about six months since I last played, so I've got some catching up to do.

First, as he said in his blog, my list is a bit off.
- had a shas'el instead of shas'o
- the firewarriors weren't bonded
- the devilfish only had decoy launchers
- the hammerheads didn't have targetlocks
no major changes, and didn't really affect the game, but just in case those number crunchers double check and think something's wrong.

I like many cheap units, and at alpha level, this mission fit right in with that general design. Obviously not a list to fight Mauleed with or anything, but a nice, well-rounded casual gaming list. I've always been a fan of the TL missile pod suits...cheap, but strong enough to threaten just about everything, with the range to stay of out trouble. As I've always complained, firewarriors really are a drag on the army, taking up large amounts of points but not contributing much to the fight, and this battle was no exception. In hindsight, I probably could have been a little more aggressive with them, as his anti-tank was more focussed on my Hammerheads.

Tactics were pretty normal for Tau, I think. Flow along the edges and shoot the enemy's mobile anti-tank stuff with everything I can. Towards the 4th turn or so, I started trying to move things back to the center of the board so I could claim/contest any quarter as needed. I gradually whittled his vehicles down, while he mosly damaged mine, until the end, where I still had enough to put something in every corner, while he had only the vyper left.

Really, the bulk of the game boiled down to, and was decided by, a few turns of tanks trading fire. It was his vypers/fire prisms/falcon vs. my hammerheads and missles-toting crisis suits. I think if we fought it a dozen times, those exchanges could have varied wildly, but this time, the Tau seemed to get the best of them. The infantry, for the most part, were confined to their table quarters, and not really in range to participate significantly to the battle. Even the Eldar snipers, though they killed several kroot, didn't kill enough to take a unit below scoring, or pin one so it couldn't contribute to the battle.

Good opponent and a good game. Hopefully I'll be hitting the gamestore a little more frequently in the future, and we can have the rematch. I'm curious how this mission would have gone at a different mission level.

Oof, yeah it was quite a beating.  In response to your questions

1.  Yes, I moved them all more than 6 and even with guide they accomplished very little.  He didn't have that much firepower aimed at my force, something like 3 railguns and 6 Missile pod shots.  He rolled very well for the first couple of glancing hits.  He glanced with two of the missile pod shots, but rolled a 5/6 against the Fire Prism.  One railgun shot shook the Falcon, and another got a glancing six on the Wave Serpent, which took the Dire Avengers below half.  So I probably shouldn't have moved my army into a position where he could put so much firepower on my army at once, but he was lucky.  This loss compounded itself throughout the game.

2. 4' by 6'

3.  Like I said, his army had mine outgunned big time, especially after my first turn losses.  Not only that, but I probably needed to use the Eldar flying Phalanx more conservatively.  He made me go first, but instead of zipping out into the open going guts for glory, I should have used my mobility to fry a corner of his army and then withdrawn before he could counter-attack.  The other piece is that around turn two or three I should have stopped playing to win and started playing to draw.  The Falcon is a golden example of this.  The turn it ate all of his fire and was only shaken, I should have abandoned the fight by the stable and headed deep into his quarter.  If I had held onto the Vypers and the Fire Prism, I could most likley have forced a draw, and he would be running in all directions to chase me.  Mech Tau is probably the force best suited to deal with Mech Eldar.  I was cocky about the ability of my tanks to get shot, I suffered for it.  Another thing in retrospect is that I will only use one Farseer from now on.  My army needs more firepower, especially at 1850 pts.

(Edit) Great game Grimaldi.  We should definitely play again.  I want revenge .

Thanks for the reports. Yours are always easy to read and the photos really help enhance what is happening. Very well done.

Interesting conversions for your Farseers. I like the combined Jetbike/BGG ship combo and the cloaks for both of them.

Again, great report.

Hehe. Hey Samwise. I see that you bought my friends eldar army. I hope that it brings you all the killy that it brought for my friend. Great Batrep.

Capt K

I cannot wait until skimmer tanks get nerfed.

- Greenie

Posted By Green Bloater on 01/17/2007 2:28 PM
I cannot wait until skimmer tanks get nerfed.

Not that this is the place for such a discussion, Steve, but I’ve seen you make this comment before and am frankly puzzled by it. Why exactly do skimmers need to be nerfed?

 

The most powerful (by which I mean resilient) skimmers are arguably the Tau Hammerhead and assorted heavy Eldar vehicles (which I guess is appropriate here).

 

However. the Hammerhead is not comparable with some of the toughest vehicles in the game. Compare it to a Land Raider, say. The advantages the Hammerhead has (assuming all the relevant upgrades are taken) are: faster movement; longer firing range; slightly more powerful primary weapon; about 80 points cheaper; can fire it’s secondary weapon around corners; can ignore immobilized results. Against that, the Land Raider has the following advantages: can only be glanced once per game; can ignore Crew Stunned results; twice as many primary weapons; much more powerful secondary weapon; tertiary weapon; capable of carrying a variety of troops; scoring unit despite being a transport; machine spirit; can take more than three in an army.

 

Seems to me that the Land Raider has a ton more advantages, which is only right as it is justifiably a lot more expensive.

 

However, the biggest advantage the Land Raider has is that it is a lot harder to kill than the Hammerhead.

 

Say, for instance, a Lascannon hits both targets. Unless my maths is way off, you have an 11% chance of destroying the Land Raider outright, no matter what direction the shot comes from. Hitting the Hammerhead from the front, you have exactly the same chance of destroying it. Of course, the Hammerhead is a lot weaker if hit in the sides (18%) or rear (22%).

 

Which begs the question: why do you think skimmer tanks are too powerful?

 

Most other skimmers are easily shot down as they have average-to-weak AV (Devilfish, Land Speeders, etc.).

 

Now I will admit that Eldar skimmers are even more resilient (what with their ‘roll two dice and take the lowest’ rule) but even they have been downgraded from the last Codex to this current incarnation.

 

Care to elaborate on your post, Steve? Or – perhaps better – take it to Dakka Discussions?

Hello Stuart

Skimmer tanks can only be glanced when moving over 6 inches. To destroy them via a glancing blow you then need to roll or 5 (immobilized) or 6 (destroyed). Both eldar and Tau have vechicular wargear that can either force you to reroll an immobilization (Tau) or cause it to land (eldar and Tau). Eldar have the holofields which force you to roll two dice and apply the lowest... the chances of rolling a 5 and 6 are low. You can still stun Tau skimmer tanks but with the new incarnation of spirit stones for eldar the best you can ever do is glance them. Skimmer tanks have always been quite resilient but back when you had to roll a 4 to immobilize a vehicle for a glancing blow they were not as resilient. Tanks on treads were much better when you could only glance them while they lurked within terrain... something along the same lines being applied to skimmer tanks - e.g., obscured versus hull down - would help to even up the playing field. I am not saying that skimmer tanks are not subject to the obscured rule, but mean to say that a change to the current rules that would bring them more in line with tanks on treads would be a good change.

The Landraider is a great tank and I personally think it is worth its points, in fact I like them so much that I currently own five (2x LR, 2x LRC, 1x LRP). However I don't think you see nearly as many Landraiders today as you see skimmer tanks at the tables and tournaments. Both mech eldar and Tau are very popular army lists today. These mech lists revolve around victory points denial to win games. These armies can do very well and I believe this shows you just how tough skimmer tanks truly are now... more so than they need to be in my opinion.

- Greenie

Hey Steve,

I seemed to have missed something in your post. Namely your reasons why you think skimmers should be nerfed.

Posted By Green Bloater on 01/18/2007 7:10 AM
Hello Stuart

Skimmer tanks can only be glanced when moving over 6 inches. To destroy them via a glancing blow you then need to roll or 5 (immobilized) or 6 (destroyed). Both eldar and Tau have vechicular wargear that can either force you to reroll an immobilization (Tau) or cause it to land (eldar and Tau). Eldar have the holofields which force you to roll two dice and apply the lowest... the chances of rolling a 5 and 6 are low.

Okay, so far, Steve, you?ve just restated everything I said. And so I?ll state the facts again: you have exactly the same chance of bringing down a Hammerhead as you do a Land Raider, if hit in the front. The chances increase greatly if the vehicle is hit elsewhere.

How does that make the Hammerhead in need of being nerfed?

(I?m staying mainly on Tau vehicles as I have little experience with Eldar.)

Posted By Green Bloater on 01/18/2007 7:10 AM
You can still stun Tau skimmer tanks but with the new incarnation of spirit stones for eldar the best you can ever do is glance them.

I do agree, Eldar vehicles do seem broken. However, they have been toned down from their last Codex. And even with glancing, hit them with enough stuff and sooner or later they?ll crash.

Like I said earlier, I?m not familiar with Eldar vehicles. But I?ll assume the front AV of an average tank is 13, just like the Hammerhead. Now the chance of killing such an Eldar vehicle is only 4.2%, which is a lot less than a Land Raider. Of course, side and rear armour may differ, I honestly don?t know.


Posted By Green Bloater on 01/18/2007 7:10 AM
Skimmer tanks have always been quite resilient but back when you had to roll a 4 to immobilize a vehicle for a glancing blow they were not as resilient.

Correct me if I?m wrong (and I could be) but this doesn?t seem right. There is no difference between rolling a 4 on a d6 and rolling a 5 on a d6. Both have a 16.7% chance of occurring. So Tau vehicles were always just as resilient. Eldar vehicles have become less resilient but admittedly, due to this small change, this part of Eldar vehicle survival has increased slightly (6.9% chance of a Lascannon destroying a AV13 vehicle).


Posted By Green Bloater on 01/18/2007 7:10 AM
Tanks on treads were much better when you could only glance them while they lurked within terrain... something along the same lines being applied to skimmer tanks - e.g., obscured versus hull down - would help to even up the playing field. I am not saying that skimmer tanks are not subject to the obscured rule, but mean to say that a change to the current rules that would bring them more in line with tanks on treads would be a good change.

Okay, that?s what you?d change to make ground tanks more powerful. Still doesn?t explain why you think skimmer tanks should be nerfed.

Posted By Green Bloater on 01/18/2007 7:10 AM
The Landraider is a great tank and I personally think it is worth its points ... However I don't think you see nearly as many Landraiders today as you see skimmer tanks at the tables and tournaments.

That?s not because skimmer tanks are more resilient (the numbers prove that they?re not, they?re considerably less or roughly equal) but rather that the HW-versus-vehicle balance is weighed too heavily in favour of the former. Let?s face it, the average tourney IG army will have enough Lascannons and Melta weapons to junk a Land Raider quickly. Losing a cheap Razorback or Hellhound (or whatever) is bad enough. Losing a 250+ points sink like a Land Raider is a big no-no.

In addition, the reinvention of SMs and their broken drop pods means that any other transport vehicle is unnecessary.

Besdies, we saw little or no Land Raiders in tourneys before 4th edition and the new Tau/Eldar Codicii, so your argument holds no water.

In fact, I don?t think in my nineteen years of playing this game that I?ve ever seen a Land Raider at a tournament. Before the new Codicii came out, I saw plenty of Tau and Eldar vehicles however.

Posted By Green Bloater on 01/18/2007 7:10 AM
Both mech eldar and Tau are very popular army lists today. These mech lists revolve around victory points denial to win games. These armies can do very well and I believe this shows you just how tough skimmer tanks truly are now... more so than they need to be in my opinion.

Yes, that?s your opinion, but why do you have it? Yes, Mech Eldar and Mech Tau are popular (although that?s for a variety of reasons, not least of all that their Codicii are new, Eldar have always been popular, etc.). Yes, they deny VPs (just as practically all Tau armies do, not just mech). And any army can do well, that?s not evidence of a single model being broken. (And in fact, the top three armies in tournaments are SMs, CSMs, and Eldar. Tau aren?t in the top three. And those high Eldar numbers are primarily due to Seer Councils, not vehicles ? although obviously most tournament data stems from before the release of the new Codex).

Please give me a reason why you think skimmer tanks should be nerfed, Steve. You hinted at a possible reason why some Eldar vehicles should be but that?s it.

Having used both skimmer and ground heavy vehicle armies, it is obvious to me that skimmers are much harder to destroy than ground tanks. They aren't that much tougher to kill with shooting, but melta weapons and hand to hand attacks don't work against them either.

I know some people play a house rule that melta weapons can can penetrate a skimmer moving fast.  I think this is a fair deal since it is realistically quite hard to get that close to a skimmer.  Land Raiders are much easier to corner.

Posted By Samwise158 on 01/18/2007 3:17 PM
Having used both skimmer and ground heavy vehicle armies, it is obvious to me that skimmers are much harder to destroy than ground tanks. They aren't that much tougher to kill with shooting, but melta weapons and hand to hand attacks don't work against them either.

I know some people play a house rule that melta weapons can can penetrate a skimmer moving fast.  I think this is a fair deal since it is realistically quite hard to get that close to a skimmer.  Land Raiders are much easier to corner.

Ah, see? There you go. An actual (even perhaps, quantifiable) reason why someone thinks skimmer tanks are more resilient than ground tanks. Thank you, Samwise158. Not saying I agree with you, but thanks for the reasoning.

I got a 403 forbidden but it's working now.

Also, I'm not sure what it is, but your batrep is obviously better than mine. Maybe it's the better quality photos. Any other tips?

I think another reason skimmer tanks are so tough to kill is because their mobility allows them to more readily dictate when and where they fight. Falcons and Hammerheads can move up to 12" and still fire, and are unhindered by terrain. Falcon, I believe, can jet 24" if they wish (?). Either way, this mobility plays heavily into skimmers being able to fight while avoiding enemy weapons. The hammerhead takes things a step further, with the extra 24" of range it has over most heavy weapons.

wasnt there a rule or was that just the Gw store lying too people that AP1 weapons alway pentrated(sp) even on skimmers, this was back when the war gear book came out doesnt any one remember that??

They penetrate automatically if the penetration roll matches the targets armor value (it would normally just glance), but if a skimmer moved over 6" in its last turn, all hits count as glancing.

I agree with the reasons given by Samwise in regards to the resilience of skimmer tanks. I do not necessarily agree with what Stuart said regarding the roll of a 4 and 6 versus a roll of 5 and six. I would have to run some numbers though to prove this.

About Landraiders... I typically take three in my Deathwing army for tournaments and they do quite well overall. They really add some tactical value to this army. Sure there is lots of stuff out there that can take them out fairly easy but a good general will protect them to help prevent this from happening.

- Greenie

Olainari,

  In terms of actual action, our two reports were pretty similar.  I did find the top down view you used to be at once clear, and alternately confusing.  I could clearly distinguish the Daemon Prince and the Tau vehicles, but it was hard to spot the differences between the Chaos infantry squads.  I  tried in my first few reports to do something similar to what you did.  I set up a tri-pod at either side of the table to get the turn by turn changes.  As I wrote more reports, I found that the long distance shots lack visual appeal, and that by framing the important actions with photos the battle reports emphasized the key moments and combats.  It also, I feel, helps to clarify what unit is performing the action if there are several similar units in one area.

Hope you have a little better luck in your next match with them.

I'm getting ready to auction off another 5,000 - 10,000 or so points here soon as my new army is nearing completion for adepticon.

 

Lazarus.

"However. the Hammerhead is not comparable with some of the toughest vehicles in the game. Compare it to a Land Raider, say. The advantages the Hammerhead has (assuming all the relevant upgrades are taken) are: faster movement; longer firing range; slightly more powerful primary weapon; about 80 points cheaper; can fire it?s secondary weapon around corners; can ignore immobilized results. Against that, the Land Raider has the following advantages: can only be glanced once per game; can ignore Crew Stunned results; twice as many primary weapons; much more powerful secondary weapon; tertiary weapon; capable of carrying a variety of troops; scoring unit despite being a transport; machine spirit; can take more than three in an army.
Seems to me that the Land Raider has a ton more advantages, which is only right as it is justifiably a lot more expensive.
However, the biggest advantage the Land Raider has is that it is a lot harder to kill than the Hammerhead."

I cant agree here. The Land Raider is horribly overpriced, and compares poorly to a Hammerhead.
1. Ok its scoring resilient and can carry troops. All this is true, but they only serve to redeem the tank from being added to the list of units that 'suck'. The real reason for this is simply the inclusion of forward access hatches that allow assaults on disembarkation.
2. Yes you can add smoke launchers, but smoke launchers and lascannon are a wasteful combination.
3. The guns are wasteful anyway, its difficult to fire both lascannon at a single target and machine spirit Bs2 doesnt cut it, also the secondary heavy bolters while decent weapons in their own right are completely out of role and thus also require the Machine spirit to be useful. he vehicle is for want of a better description 'confused'.
3. Now a Hammerhead doesnt have that problem, you can target lock your secondary weapons if you wish, or buy dirt cheap burst cannon that you dont mind not firing. Besides once tank killing dutiers are done submunitions and two burst cannon have good synergy.
4. Av13 with 6"+ skimmer moves is very good protection, add disruption pod and or decoy launchers and you are getting close to upgraded Falcon levels of survivability. Just without the stun insurance.

The reason to take a Land Raider is to have a tank that can do anything reasonably well, and survive the process. At a price.Itys not even remotely comparerable to a Hammerhead as an actual tank. A Pred Annihilator on the other hand.

"However. the Hammerhead is not comparable with some of the toughest vehicles in the game. Compare it to a Land Raider, say. The advantages the Hammerhead has (assuming all the relevant upgrades are taken) are: faster movement; longer firing range; slightly more powerful primary weapon; about 80 points cheaper; can fire it?s secondary weapon around corners; can ignore immobilized results. Against that, the Land Raider has the following advantages: can only be glanced once per game; can ignore Crew Stunned results; twice as many primary weapons; much more powerful secondary weapon; tertiary weapon; capable of carrying a variety of troops; scoring unit despite being a transport; machine spirit; can take more than three in an army.
Seems to me that the Land Raider has a ton more advantages, which is only right as it is justifiably a lot more expensive.
However, the biggest advantage the Land Raider has is that it is a lot harder to kill than the Hammerhead."

I cant agree here. The Land Raider is horribly overpriced, and compares poorly to a Hammerhead.
1. Ok its scoring resilient and can carry troops. All this is true, but they only serve to redeem the tank from being added to the list of units that 'suck'. The real reason for this is simply the inclusion of forward access hatches that allow assaults on disembarkation.
2. Yes you can add smoke launchers, but smoke launchers and lascannon are a wasteful combination.
3. The guns are wasteful anyway, its difficult to fire both lascannon at a single target and machine spirit Bs2 doesnt cut it, also the secondary heavy bolters while decent weapons in their own right are completely out of role and thus also require the Machine spirit to be useful. he vehicle is for want of a better description 'confused'.
3. Now a Hammerhead doesnt have that problem, you can target lock your secondary weapons if you wish, or buy dirt cheap burst cannon that you dont mind not firing. Besides once tank killing dutiers are done submunitions and two burst cannon have good synergy.
4. Av13 with 6"+ skimmer moves is very good protection, add disruption pod and or decoy launchers and you are getting close to upgraded Falcon levels of survivability. Just without the stun insurance.

The reason to take a Land Raider is to have a tank that can do anything reasonably well, and survive the process. At a price.Itys not even remotely comparerable to a Hammerhead as an actual tank. A Pred Annihilator on the other hand.

I agree. There is no way that a Landraider comes even close to the Hammerhead. To me the Landraider is still of value but there is really no comparison unless you field at least three, which few people will do.

- Greenie

I don't agree, Hammerheads have the best firing tank gun PERIOD and can move 12 inches and still shoot and only have glancing hits.

I agree with you actually. The Hammerhead is by far the superior choice. I hope the rumor that Space Marines will be able to skim their tanks is for real.

- Greenie

Posted By Green Bloater on 01/20/2007 10:42 PM
I agree with the reasons given by Samwise in regards to the resilience of skimmer tanks. I do not necessarily agree with what Stuart said regarding the roll of a 4 and 6 versus a roll of 5 and six. I would have to run some numbers though to prove this.

No need. The numbers are exactly the same as far as the Hammerhead is concerned. Different for Eldar, of course, but I said that already.

Posted By Orlanth on 01/24/2007 6:34 AM
4. Av13 with 6"+ skimmer moves is very good protection, add disruption pod and or decoy launchers and you are getting close to upgraded Falcon levels of survivability. Just without the stun insurance.

Sheer nonsense. With the exception of Melta weapons, you have exactly the same chance of downing a Hammerhead (hit in front armour) as you do a Land Raider. There's no way you can argue otherwise. Add in the fact that the Hammerhead has weaker armour on the sides and rear and can be damaged by weaker weapons (you only need S4/S7 weaponry as opposed to S8) means that the Hammerhead is mathematically much less survivable.

 

Except from Meltas. And that's my last word on the subject, because if math doesn't convince you, nothing will.

Posted By Green Bloater on 01/25/2007 2:47 PM
I agree with you actually. The Hammerhead is by far the superior choice. I hope the rumor that Space Marines will be able to skim their tanks is for real.

- Greenie

Ack no!  The last thing marines need is another awesome tool to make them better and other races less unique!

Posted By Stu-Rat on 01/26/2007 11:05 AM

Posted By Orlanth on 01/24/2007 6:34 AM
4. Av13 with 6"+ skimmer moves is very good protection, add disruption pod and or decoy launchers and you are getting close to upgraded Falcon levels of survivability. Just without the stun insurance.

Sheer nonsense. With the exception of Melta weapons, you have exactly the same chance of downing a Hammerhead (hit in front armour) as you do a Land Raider. There's no way you can argue otherwise. Add in the fact that the Hammerhead has weaker armour on the sides and rear and can be damaged by weaker weapons (you only need S4/S7 weaponry as opposed to S8) means that the Hammerhead is mathematically much less survivable.

 

Except from Meltas. And that's my last word on the subject, because if math doesn't convince you, nothing will.

You're right, of course, as far as pure mathhammer goes.  Unfortunately, I think when you factor in gun range, mobility and operational use, the Hammerhead is probably more survivable in actual game usage. 

If the Hammerhead did not have access to decoy launchers then maybe the Land Raider could compare. But then again who takes a Hammerhead without this quinessential piece of wargear? And you cannot throw melta weapons out of the equation.

- Greenie

Actually, the Eldar tanks have AV 12 front/sides and 10 rear.  Yes, they're incredibly resiliant, but with the new spirit stone rules they're also incredibly easy firepower to shut down.

Lascannon vs Falcon/Prism from the front/side:

2/3 hit * 2/3 glance = 4/9 chance to 'shut it up for a turn' (~44.44%)

4/9 effect * 4/36 kill = 4/81 chance to kill/make land (~4.9%)

Keeping these numbers in mind, the way to deal with uber-skimmers is to shoot each target you have until it's glanced and then cycle back through for the kill-shot chances after you've shut them all down for the turn.

You've got to be kidding me.

You know why a Hammerhead or Falcon is more resilient than a Land Raider?

You can penetrate the Landraider, played properly you have a very low chance to penetrate the Hammerhead and in many games you can never penetrate a Falcon under the new rules.

Tau Skimmers I'm not so sold on them being completely broken since rolling on the glancing table is pretty bad for them.

1-2: Safe
3: Can't move, can be penetrated next turn - BAD
4: Weapon Destroyed - BAD
5: Spin the wheel again first time rolled, death if you hit it again on the re-roll.
6: Dead

Eldar Skimmers on the other hand are complete I think swearing makes me cool!. The fact that it's 2D6 take the lowest & the fact that you can't keep them from moving and thus be penetrated, you're looking at the most resilient tanks in the game. The fact that the Eldar player just locked up 600VP's of his army that you can likely never ever touch is just I'm a grownup, you can tell because I swear. plane and simple. The best you can do is dedicate as little firepower to them as possible to keep them shaken all game and then use the rest of your firepower to kill the other parts of his army.