|
Post by mottdon on Nov 14, 2018 13:53:30 GMT
Gunlines are easily beaten with one tactic. Unit saturation. You simply bring too many units for his (expensive) artillery pieces to handle, then swarm them. Will you lose units? Sure, but many will get through and most of the time, win the CC with the crew. Shooting units usually go down rather quickly too. I played my Dwarfs against a VC army a few months back, and while I was blowing away most targets I shot at, there were simply too many and he kept bringing more to the game. I simply couldn't stop his sheer numbers.
Evasion tactics are more aggravating since they could keep you spinning the entire game, but I think the main annoyance is that they force you to think through your moves much more in depth. You have to think 5 moves ahead. Most people I know simply like to throw their units out there in some semblance of a battle plan, then react to what they see happen. When playing with/against Wood Elves, you simply can't do that. I think that's mostly why people don't like avoidance lists. It's not that they can't be beat, but it takes much more patience and planning to beat them, something most players don't want to have to do.
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Nov 14, 2018 14:33:31 GMT
I think it comes down to how often you play something. I don’t mind anything if it is just once in a while. If I haven't played in a long time and want the next game to be fluffy, I will just ask my opponent if it is possible to bring an evenly matched list.
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Nov 14, 2018 17:47:18 GMT
I think it comes down to how often you play something. I don’t mind anything if it is just once in a while. If I haven't played in a long time and want the next game to be fluffy, I will just ask my opponent if it is possible to bring an evenly matched list. Agreeing with your opponent in advance on the type of game is always good but even saying that, if your opponent always takes a gun line or avoidance when playing certain armies, you will end up tailoring your list to counter that and likely smash them. If it happens a few times in a row they’ll have to adapt with a different play style (or be continuously stomped). It’s one of the reasons why I love Warhammer, most new games are a challenge, even against the same opponent. Of course in a tournament/competition it’s a different matter and you know that you can and likely will face match ups where you are a disadvantage
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Nov 15, 2018 0:45:08 GMT
I think it comes down to how often you play something. I don’t mind anything if it is just once in a while. If I haven't played in a long time and want the next game to be fluffy, I will just ask my opponent if it is possible to bring an evenly matched list. I agree with this 100%. Imo nothing wrong with playing against any type of list including gunline/avoidance/waac but it's the repitition factor which would make these unbearable if you had to face them constantly. I used to play a dwarf gunline but would be careful not to aggravate my regular opponents with it by using it constantly to the point where people would consider me 'the dwarf gunline guy'. 8th has been a boon to non gunline dwarf armies with the 2d6 charge enabling them to actually charge enemies as opposed to older editions where 6 inches was as good as it got. Max charge if 15 inches vs 6 is night and day. To mix it up I'd even bring my 'no black powder' crossbow line which no one ever complained about even if they had faced a gunpowder/cannon based list the game before. Quarrelers, bolt throwers and throwing axes galore along with the trusty catapult. Can't complain about facing a dwarf 'gunline' if the army has zero guns.... Variety is the spice of life!
|
|
|
Post by lordmuffin on Nov 19, 2018 5:02:37 GMT
It would be interesting to see some battle reports from players using that as a house rule. My club actually does play with a house rule requiring a rank bonus to be steadfast. This has 2 major impacts- 1 allowing disruption to break steadfast, opening up flanks and a few other special abilities to break deep ranks. 2 it means single lines of infantry can still be broken by a monster or chariot, rather than being stubborn. I’ve got a few battle reports posted on these forums, though might not have the detail you’re looking for.
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Nov 19, 2018 6:24:50 GMT
I’ve just learnt something new. I never realised a single rank could be steadfast. I always assumed a unit would need an additional rank to get it. That just seems wrong otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by lordmuffin on Nov 19, 2018 7:10:49 GMT
Yeah, it’s something I consider one of the greatest weakening of the combat resolution and break test system that WFB relied on for so long. It really eroded the functionality of single model units, far more than cannon accuracy in my opinion. Having played with unaltered rules back when 8th Edition was being published, I was always frustrated with the execution of steadfast explicitly negating many rules and incentivizing killing models as opposed to breaking units.
Our club has a few veterans and none of us ever missed the original steadfast rules. If we ever put together an eefl errata and faq, I will die on this hill trying to push this change.
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Nov 19, 2018 7:18:51 GMT
I’ll have your six on that one. In fact I’m in the process of adding it to the club comp rule faq.
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Nov 19, 2018 12:29:48 GMT
Very interesting. Might be something for my group too .
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Nov 19, 2018 13:22:41 GMT
I’ve just learnt something new. I never realised a single rank could be steadfast. I always assumed a unit would need an additional rank to get it. That just seems wrong otherwise. Empire Detachments do not need to have any ranks at all to be steadfast.
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Nov 19, 2018 14:57:08 GMT
I’ve just learnt something new. I never realised a single rank could be steadfast. I always assumed a unit would need an additional rank to get it. That just seems wrong otherwise. Empire Detachments do not need to have any ranks at all to be steadfast. That actually makes more sense to me as the detachment looks to the parent for support/backbone etc.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Nov 19, 2018 15:04:16 GMT
Does it, though?
After CC with 50 Clanrats, a single Halberdier is all that is left of a Detachment. The Regimental Unit consists of a single Spearman not in combat. Ergo: the Halberdier is steadfast.
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Nov 19, 2018 18:34:43 GMT
Does it, though? After CC with 50 Clanrats, a single Halberdier is all that is left of a Detachment. The Regimental Unit consists of a single Spearman not in combat. Ergo: the Halberdier is steadfast. How would the single spearman be steadfast? It has less rank then the clanrats.
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Nov 19, 2018 19:00:29 GMT
But the parent unit would make it steadfast. That's what he's arguing. It is a little ridiculous that one model in a detachment could hold up an entire unit all by himself, just because the parent unit was nearby. But game play rules don't always equal reality.
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Nov 19, 2018 20:55:19 GMT
But the parent unit would make it steadfast. That's what he's arguing. It is a little ridiculous that one model in a detachment could hold up an entire unit all by himself, just because the parent unit was nearby. But game play rules don't always equal reality. Yes, but how can a single spearman of the regiment unit be steadfast? I get the part that the detachment is one model and gets its rules from its parent. I just don't get how a single model in the parent unit ever can be steadfast.
|
|