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.

^have you ever even TRIED wiping a a twenty-man stubborn blob in cover off an objective?! It's damn near impossible. You pretty much have to assault them, and with commisars and priests, they arn't slouches in close combat either. Running up with flamers is easier said then done, seeing as your opponant is playing gaurd, and you are using all you special weapons on flamers, sounds to me like he's going to out-range you by a good bit. He'll have time to respond to your oncoming flamers, in the form of long-ranged fire-power from artillary and heavy weapons in the gaurd blobs, and 60-some lasgun shots when your within 12" from FRFSRF. If blob gaurd only wins against stupid opponants, then why is it considered so effective? Try reading some battlereps with footgaurd, Ailaros has a link to about 5 billion in his sig, give 'um a read.

Btw Ailaros, they're all good reads. I especially love the ones starring Commisar Raust.

loota boy wrote:^have you ever even TRIED wiping a a twenty-man stubborn blob in cover off an objective?! It's damn near impossible.

Two heavy flamers and a sternguard volley (lol no cover save).

Joey wrote:

loota boy wrote:^have you ever even TRIED wiping a a twenty-man stubborn blob in cover off an objective?! It's damn near impossible.

Two heavy flamers and a sternguard volley (lol no cover save).

Yeah, but don't forget, you use the Russes to stop that from happening.

General_Marshall wrote:

Joey wrote:

loota boy wrote:^have you ever even TRIED wiping a a twenty-man stubborn blob in cover off an objective?! It's damn near impossible.

Two heavy flamers and a sternguard volley (lol no cover save).

Yeah, but don't forget, you use the Russes to stop that from happening.

Against a drop pod?

Demolisher cannon russ.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

General_Marshall wrote:

Joey wrote:

loota boy wrote:^have you ever even TRIED wiping a a twenty-man stubborn blob in cover off an objective?! It's damn near impossible.

Two heavy flamers and a sternguard volley (lol no cover save).

Yeah, but don't forget, you use the Russes to stop that from happening.

Against a drop pod?

That's one hell of a Leman Russ then

that said, every list has weaknesses. Blob guard and Green Tide hate flamers, mech guard hates mass lascannon/melta spam, etc. No one army can ever beat everything ever. To say that a list doesn't have a single weakness would be, well, lying. The key is knowing your weaknesses, and keeping the enemy from exploiting them.

MrMoustaffa wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

General_Marshall wrote:

Joey wrote:

loota boy wrote:^have you ever even TRIED wiping a a twenty-man stubborn blob in cover off an objective?! It's damn near impossible.

Two heavy flamers and a sternguard volley (lol no cover save).

Yeah, but don't forget, you use the Russes to stop that from happening.

Against a drop pod?

That's one hell of a Leman Russ then

that said, every list has weaknesses. Blob guard and Green Tide hate flamers, mech guard hates mass lascannon/melta spam, etc. No one army can ever beat everything ever. To say that a list doesn't have a single weakness would be, well, lying. The key is knowing your weaknesses, and keeping the enemy from exploiting them.

I disagree on that. The list can be poor, but its the general who can control what happens. The whole point of this Imperial tactic, of "dying standing" is to pack cheap so you can afford to lose troops and tanks. So yes, the 150 of guard you drop-flamed would be dead, but in doing so you leave your marines and the pod to automatic death by heavy guns. A 150 to 250 point trade sounds good to me.

I myself have absolutely no problem throwing away my tanks. But when it comes to men, it is more difficult.

I favour a rather tallarn strategy (look at the avatar... ): Movement over firepower. disengagement over casualties, hiding over acting. I try to encourage, lure and harass the opponent into a disadvantageous position before striking with full force and then relocate again immediately or push through exploiting the initial blow.

The elements are crossfire, combined arms, outflanking, solid and selective defensive firepower and agile chimera tactics.

So I play a kind of upside down guard philosophy.

General_Marshall wrote:

MrMoustaffa wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

General_Marshall wrote:

Joey wrote:

loota boy wrote:^have you ever even TRIED wiping a a twenty-man stubborn blob in cover off an objective?! It's damn near impossible.

Two heavy flamers and a sternguard volley (lol no cover save).

Yeah, but don't forget, you use the Russes to stop that from happening.

Against a drop pod?

That's one hell of a Leman Russ then

that said, every list has weaknesses. Blob guard and Green Tide hate flamers, mech guard hates mass lascannon/melta spam, etc. No one army can ever beat everything ever. To say that a list doesn't have a single weakness would be, well, lying. The key is knowing your weaknesses, and keeping the enemy from exploiting them.

I disagree on that. The list can be poor, but its the general who can control what happens. The whole point of this Imperial tactic, of "dying standing" is to pack cheap so you can afford to lose troops and tanks. So yes, the 150 of guard you drop-flamed would be dead, but in doing so you leave your marines and the pod to automatic death by heavy guns. A 150 to 250 point trade sounds good to me.

Blast templates (sorry, blast markers ) are one of the worst ways of killing MEQ. For every four that you fit under the template, on average about 1 will die.

For every four that you fit under the template, on average about 1 will die.

rather close to 2. You wound on 2+ with everything that has a large blast template and ap3 or better and have 4+ cover if you are in cover. so 4 hits, almost 4 wounds, almost 2 casualties. But I agree a single blast marker no matter the size almost never wipes a squad completely. It should be the first weapon to inflict a bunch of casualties, then the multi shot weapons should wipeout the rest.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

For every four that you fit under the template, on average about 1 will die.

rather close to 2. You wound on 2+ with everything that has a large blast template and ap3 or better and have 4+ cover if you are in cover. so 4 hits, almost 4 wounds, almost 2 casualties. But I agree a single blast marker no matter the size almost never wipes a squad completely. It should be the first weapon to inflict a bunch of casualties, then the multi shot weapons should wipeout the rest.

I generally assume a ~50% chance to hit as well. So place it on 4, miss two, one makes his cover, that's one dead (actually slightly less when you account for failure to wound). Compare this to 2.2 dead per turn from a Punisher (I think, the one that's Heavy 20).
Large blest weapons are incredibly ineffective against enemy infantry.

Joey wrote:
Large blast weapons are incredibly ineffective against enemy infantry.

I'm teetering on the edge of getting sucked into a debate on why I vehemently disagree with the statement above, but I'll try not to.

I'm more of a Mordian when it comes to Guard. Heavily drilled, experienced soldiers that I'd rather not throw away just for the sake of marching forwards. I have experienced Tank crews for that, let them take the gusto out of the enemy so my Flamer Vets burn out Space Marines sitting on their objectives...

KplKeegan wrote:

Joey wrote:
Large blast weapons are incredibly ineffective against enemy infantry.

I'm teetering on the edge of getting sucked into a debate on why I vehemently disagree with the statement above, but I'll try not to.

Unless you can guarantee a direct hit AND you play on a completely open battlefield, you can't
To hear certain people talk you wouldn't think there was such a thing as cover or a scatter distance greater than 3".

Joey wrote:

loota boy wrote:^have you ever even TRIED wiping a a twenty-man stubborn blob in cover off an objective?! It's damn near impossible.

Two heavy flamers and a sternguard volley (lol no cover save).

Wow! Good thing you had exact knowledge of your opponent's army and brought unit that denies most of his army's benefits! You should win every tournament!

Joey wrote:

KplKeegan wrote:

Joey wrote:
Large blast weapons are incredibly ineffective against enemy infantry.

I'm teetering on the edge of getting sucked into a debate on why I vehemently disagree with the statement above, but I'll try not to.

Unless you can guarantee a direct hit AND you play on a completely open battlefield, you can't
To hear certain people talk you wouldn't think there was such a thing as cover or a scatter distance greater than 3".

Again, I do not want to debate this topic. Unless you purpousley conga-line infantry 2" coherency, which opens up a host of other problems, there are ways of maximizing blast weapons. Spacing units out to the maximum 2" Coherency does 'cushion' the blast, but increases the likely hood that it would always hit. Blast Weapons are all about surface area, so the more area you cover the more likely a blast weapon will hit something.

To hear certain people talk you wouldn't think there were such mechanics as multiple barrage weapons, barrage weapons, blasts that ignore cover, blasts that make cover dangerous terrain, and blast templates in general.

KplKeegan wrote:

Joey wrote:

KplKeegan wrote:

Joey wrote:
Large blast weapons are incredibly ineffective against enemy infantry.

I'm teetering on the edge of getting sucked into a debate on why I vehemently disagree with the statement above, but I'll try not to.

Unless you can guarantee a direct hit AND you play on a completely open battlefield, you can't
To hear certain people talk you wouldn't think there was such a thing as cover or a scatter distance greater than 3".

Again, I do not want to debate this topic. Unless you purpousley conga-line infantry 2" coherency, which opens up a host of other problems, there are ways of maximizing blast weapons. Spacing units out to the maximum 2" Coherency does 'cushion' the blast, but increases the likely hood that it would always hit. Blast Weapons are all about surface area, so the more area you cover the more likely a blast weapon will hit something.

To hear certain people talk you wouldn't think there were such mechanics as multiple barrage weapons, barrage weapons, blasts that ignore cover, blasts that make cover dangerous terrain, and blast templates in general.

Russes can't do any of those things. Aside from the Manticore, everything that can is AV 12/10/10 and open-topped.

Joey wrote:

KplKeegan wrote:

Joey wrote:

KplKeegan wrote:

Joey wrote:
Large blast weapons are incredibly ineffective against enemy infantry.

I'm teetering on the edge of getting sucked into a debate on why I vehemently disagree with the statement above, but I'll try not to.

Unless you can guarantee a direct hit AND you play on a completely open battlefield, you can't
To hear certain people talk you wouldn't think there was such a thing as cover or a scatter distance greater than 3".

Again, I do not want to debate this topic. Unless you purpousley conga-line infantry 2" coherency, which opens up a host of other problems, there are ways of maximizing blast weapons. Spacing units out to the maximum 2" Coherency does 'cushion' the blast, but increases the likely hood that it would always hit. Blast Weapons are all about surface area, so the more area you cover the more likely a blast weapon will hit something.

To hear certain people talk you wouldn't think there were such mechanics as multiple barrage weapons, barrage weapons, blasts that ignore cover, blasts that make cover dangerous terrain, and blast templates in general.

Russes can't do any of those things. Aside from the Manticore, everything that can is AV 12/10/10 and open-topped.

Eradicator Cannon? The Executioner Cannon? Artillery can fire indirectly? Armored carraige? Artillery Battery? Mortars?

I do not really want to debate this topic.

KplKeegan wrote:

Joey wrote:

KplKeegan wrote:

Joey wrote:

KplKeegan wrote:

Joey wrote:
Large blast weapons are incredibly ineffective against enemy infantry.

I'm teetering on the edge of getting sucked into a debate on why I vehemently disagree with the statement above, but I'll try not to.

Unless you can guarantee a direct hit AND you play on a completely open battlefield, you can't
To hear certain people talk you wouldn't think there was such a thing as cover or a scatter distance greater than 3".

Again, I do not want to debate this topic. Unless you purpousley conga-line infantry 2" coherency, which opens up a host of other problems, there are ways of maximizing blast weapons. Spacing units out to the maximum 2" Coherency does 'cushion' the blast, but increases the likely hood that it would always hit. Blast Weapons are all about surface area, so the more area you cover the more likely a blast weapon will hit something.

To hear certain people talk you wouldn't think there were such mechanics as multiple barrage weapons, barrage weapons, blasts that ignore cover, blasts that make cover dangerous terrain, and blast templates in general.

Russes can't do any of those things. Aside from the Manticore, everything that can is AV 12/10/10 and open-topped.

Eradicator Cannon? The Executioner Cannon? Artillery can fire indirectly? Armored carraige? Artillery Battery? Mortars?

I do not really want to debate this topic.

Eradicator is AP 4 so MEQ still get an armour save. Executioner is the odd one out by virtue of pumping out enough shots to actually be reliable, especially with plasma sponsons (even though 230 points lol).
Artillery is just too fragile. Imagine chimeras. Now imagine that your enemy really, really, really wants to blow them up. Yeah.
The only one that could be useful is the Colossus, but then it's rubbish against vehicles.
Manticores are alright though, they're pretty good at taking out vehicles.

Joey wrote:Eradicator is AP 4 so MEQ still get an armour save.

You're missing the point. It ignores cover, and just because MEQ's get their armor save doesn't invalidate the tank.

Artillery is just too fragile. Imagine chimeras. Now imagine that your enemy really, really, really wants to blow them up. Yeah.
The only one that could be useful is the Colossus, but then it's rubbish against vehicles.

Again, missing the point. Artillery batteries provide barrages, which ignore cover. Having a battery of two Griffons and a Colossus can cover a serious amount of surface area. They're not designed to engage tanks, so I don't understand why you would bother trying to blow one up with them.

@blast weaponry

I have seen both events: multiple blast weapons tearing through whole squads and just wiping them out and them doing absolutely nothing. statistic cannot be applied to a proper result because the environment is important to consider. But discussing this topic to death is not really a help for this thread I think...

This is exactly why I got Guardsmen as my 2nd army. Eldar are my first, and it's all about conservation of units...I consider it a good game if no Eldar life is lost. Guardsmen are about spending units, and I consider it a good game if only my Command Squad is left on the field.

If I want a unit dead in a 1000 point game three russes, heavy bolters, mortars and a volley of lasguns kill it. Don't argue with that.

General_Marshall wrote:If I want a unit dead in a 1000 point game three russes, heavy bolters, mortars and a volley of lasguns kill it. Don't argue with that.

Only 3? Come on now, you can do better than that

Back OT, I think this whole "expendable" mindset is a double edged sword for IG. On one hand, I don't think any other army can just throw units at the enemy quite like IG can, and still come out on top, but at the same time, it can lead us to do stupid things. We're so used to sacrificing platoons, tanks, and anything else necessary to win, that it's very easy to just lose your whole army to being too aggressive.

Of course, the more veteran players have found the balance by now, but for a guy starting out, it can be a hard technique to master...

MrMoustaffa wrote:

General_Marshall wrote:If I want a unit dead in a 1000 point game three russes, heavy bolters, mortars and a volley of lasguns kill it. Don't argue with that.

Only 3? Come on now, you can do better than that

Back OT, I think this whole "expendable" mindset is a double edged sword for IG. On one hand, I don't think any other army can just throw units at the enemy quite like IG can, and still come out on top, but at the same time, it can lead us to do stupid things. We're so used to sacrificing platoons, tanks, and anything else necessary to win, that it's very easy to just lose your whole army to being too aggressive.

Of course, the more veteran players have found the balance by now, but for a guy starting out, it can be a hard technique to master...

Very ture. Spend don't waste.

Ignatius wrote:I care too much about my army. I feel too attached to them, they are my army. No one else but mine. So I actually feel bad when I throw my guardsmen into a meat grinder. That and the time it took me to paint each one warrents my concern.

Mordian Army- not a chance in the warp I'll throw them away

My Cadian/ catachan- Oh this tactic has been employed most definately.

im like this with my helghast guard they look to awrsome to throw away however i played as my orks yesterday and had no problem throwing them at several grey knight landraiders in hopes of cracking them with my powerklaws they got absolutely flamered but i found that i wasnt that botheted they did there job and i won the game

Here's a math "Protip" joey. If it takes your opponents entire army to kill your blob of twenty men and you have another 100 (that's 120 total so you only lost 1/6 of your infantry force), it's not a wipe, you're likely winning. Since, unless it's another blob army, your facing an smaller opponent with more concentrated force. So every unit or single model they lose accounts for more killing power than your simple guardsman. As a guard player, I'll take any kind of even trade since my men are cheap and numerous. I have built in redundancies that a space marine player can only dream of. While I'm not happy that I lost a whole blob, they did their job, presented a scary target and drew a whole lot of fire. It's honestly depressing to keep reading comments from people who think that talking with an air of superiority and being insulting makes them an authority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Back to the origional poster, Yes, it's a very important lesson to learn. You really need to internalize that casualties are irrellivent, only victory matters. When a dark eldar drops a squad of wyches on your only big30 man blob, it's very tempting to just let them fight it out and not intentionally break. But after 1 full turn of combat, if you don't KNOW you're going to win you need to start looking for the earliest chance to kill that commissar and get some guns pointing at the melee. If your other guns aren't going to shoot anything else next turn, break the blob fast and wipe out the victors. That hardest thing to do well all the time is to keep your men positioned well so that when, not if they die, the thing that killed them is out in the open

kungfujew wrote:Here's a math "Protip" joey. If it takes your opponents entire army to kill your blob of twenty men and you have another 100 (that's 120 total so you only lost 1/6 of your infantry force), it's not a wipe, you're likely winning. Since, unless it's another blob army, your facing an smaller opponent with more concentrated force. So every unit or single model they lose accounts for more killing power than your simple guardsman. As a guard player, I'll take any kind of even trade since my men are cheap and numerous. I have built in redundancies that a space marine player can only dream of. While I'm not happy that I lost a whole blob, they did their job, presented a scary target and drew a whole lot of fire. It's honestly depressing to keep reading comments from people who think that talking with an air of superiority and being insulting makes them an authority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Back to the origional poster, Yes, it's a very important lesson to learn. You really need to internalize that casualties are irrellivent, only victory matters. When a dark eldar drops a squad of wyches on your only big30 man blob, it's very tempting to just let them fight it out and not intentionally break. But after 1 full turn of combat, if you don't KNOW you're going to win you need to start looking for the earliest chance to kill that commissar and get some guns pointing at the melee. If your other guns aren't going to shoot anything else next turn, break the blob fast and wipe out the victors. That hardest thing to do well all the time is to keep your men positioned well so that when, not if they die, the thing that killed them is out in the open

Kill the Commissar? I'm can say I argree, as long as the guardsmen buy time I personally wouldn't care if the enemies lived or survived. As long as they did not interfere with victory for me.