PDA

View Full Version : Viability of Target Denial Armies



Gorgrim
24-07-2007, 22:18
Has anyone tried using an army completely made from one type of unit (Inf or AV) to deny your opponent targets for either AP or AT attacks?

I just finished a game using a standard 3,000 point SM army against an IG army composed of nothing but Leman Russes, Baneblades and a Warlord. At the end of turn four IG won 2-1 by claiming 'Defend the flag' and 'They Shall Not Pass'.

The weird thing is that the IG only took two casualties, a Leman Russ and the Warlord, while the Marines had lost half their force. Granted the Marines were rolling very poorly and the IG were making an extraordinary number of their Reinforced Armour saves, but it was a little annoying having half of the Marines fire power (the AP shots) do nothing apart from adding a blast marker.

Would this be a viable option to take competitively or are there any glaring weaknesses that I am missing (I know it would be difficult to get infantry out of cover, but the Baneblades seem to be doing a good job of it)?

Conversely, how would an army entirely of Assault marines fair in comparison?

Thoughts?

Chaos and Evil
24-07-2007, 23:22
Against the army you describe, I would have relied on Engagements.

Get a tactical formation in close combat with the Leman Russes, and suddenly their firepower is reduced to a trickle...

Sounds like you were hammering at them with ranged fire though?

If so, the IG are always going to win a ranged combat... that's what they do! :D

Anyways, Devestators, Assault Marines, and a bunch of Thunderhawks, and that army of tanks is toast.

Gorgrim
25-07-2007, 00:22
I was pummelling the Warlord from afar with my Devs, LRs, Preds and Whirlwinds as I didn't want to get too close to it. Once the shields were down all available AT weapons were pumped into it.

This left my tactical marines, assault marines and terminators to try and take out the two LR companies on the other flank by engaging them. As it was only the Terminators (and thunderhawk) were able to assault them (two tactical formations were just over the 15cm required to lend support). The result was 1 dead Leman Russ and all but one terminator unit dead, including the Thunderhawk.

After that the two tank companies would tag team the marine formations, which wasn't too good, even in cover.

As I said, this game had unusually bad dice rolling for the marines, but exceptionally good rolling for the IG.

I was just curious to see if others had thought about limiting their armies to one or the other (Inf or AV) and how they faired.

Hena
25-07-2007, 03:50
My usual style against that army with Warlord is to ignore it. Kill everything else except the warlord. It cannot defend the conditions by itself. So assault the Leman Russes and super heavies as they cannot win against Marines in close combat (well super heavies can).

One way to kill warlord against marines is to first get the shields down. Annihilators, devastators what ever. Then move 1 or 2 detachments of Land Speeders next to it (few lucky shots could hit) after it has moved. Then engage into cc with Terminators. They should survive the counter attack and then allow 10 MW5+ support fire to shoot. Without shields titan start to have problems. Especially if the Termies has Chaplain with them as then you have already done 5 MW3+ attacks.

I've played one game against 6 huge mobs of orks. And won.

Patriarch
26-07-2007, 12:35
but it was a little annoying having half of the Marines fire power (the AP shots) do nothing apart from adding a blast marker.


There aren't many marine AP weapons which don't have an AT value (scouts and vehicle HBs the only ones which occur to me) so you won't have wasted half your shots as such. The Tac/Dev MLs have a lower AT accuracy , but even so most of your shooting units should have been adding BMs with AT shots.

As the guys said, you had no chance if you went into a shooting war against an army like that. Lots of assaults and supporting fire, ignore the titan althogether. One termy formation (no upgrades) will knock off 1.5 DC per engagement with a WL, whilst losing 1.67 stands in return. Unless you have 2+ termy formations and a commander, it isn't going to be worth assaulting an undamaged WL. Those AT shots used to strip its shields and maybe knock some DC off would be far better spent on the rest of the tank army - which shouldn't be too big with the WL eating lots of points.

Moscovian
26-07-2007, 15:59
I've played an entire infantry SM army before (drop pods and terminators, baby!) and it was nice not to have to deal with the AT fire. However the game was against an experimental list (thurgrim squats) and I lost, but not by much!

Patriarch
28-07-2007, 09:12
I've played an entire infantry SM army before (drop pods and terminators, baby!)

Moscovian - how many terminators is that?? :eek:

Moscovian
28-07-2007, 10:02
It was three formations of terminators. The rest were devastators, tacticals, and -of course- scouts!