|
Well, I managed to get in a game for the first time in a couple months. Salamanders v IG. I intended to take a list with minimal selections from the 1/3 "allies" points to make it as representative of the list as possible.
That was a mistake. My normal method of SM play failed miserably because my normal "mud marine" composition is too different. A disastrous first turn/first activation and it was a long, slow, painful slide. I resigned about half way through the third turn because neither of us could see any possibility of recovery.
Overview: Side deployment. SM blitz in the midboard. IG blitz in one corner. T&H objectives more or less down the middle.
IG army:
Russ Company
2 Infantry companies w/ Fire Support
Deathstrikes
2 Stormtrooper formations in Valkyries
Hydras
Tbolts
Sentinels
Warhound
Salamanders:
Tacs + SC + Prometheus +Razorback
2 Tacs + Salamander Tacs
Devs + Salamander Devs
Preds + 2 Incinerators
Assault + 2 Incinerators + Chaplain
Tbolts
Terminators
IG garrisoned the infantry and the Sentinels practically on the midboard. The setup was basically a refused flank. The infantry took the center and the weak flank, with the Sentinels in front and the Warhound behind to support. The strong flank was on the side towards the IG blitz and set up in a castle formation. It was blatantly intermingled but such ridiculous volumes of firepower in such a compact area that a teleport/clip assault would have been suicidal.
I deployed in basically a straight line, intending to count on SM speed to adjust on the fly. From left (the weak IG flank) to right, it went: Tacs, Devs, Preds, Tacs, SC, Assault.
I had 2 options. First, the weak flank was slow and could really only threaten one objective, so I could ignore it and concentrate on the bulk of the IG army. Second, I could try to roll up the weak flank and hit the remainder of the army as it moved to reinforce.
I decided that rolling up the flank would be best. That infantry formation was in a commanding position (buildings with good field of fire). Taking them out would free up a lot of room for maneuver and it would be hard for the IG to coordinate a counter attack due to the different speeds of the formations on the strong side.
Turn 1 I teleport the Terminators into the buildings adjacent to the IG, intending to sweep them with Ignore Cover flamers, followed by the Tac/Sal formation joining the Termies to push them out. As it was, I lost the strategy roll, the IG hit an insane amount, and the Termies failed disproportionately. A retain by the Warhound finished them off and I was down an activation, with nothing close enough to assault the IG.
Salamanders are FF assault troops, so I needed to assault. However, I couldn't leave troops mounted because those Deathstrike Missiles would have perfect targets. The IG had more formations, so they were able to stall and when the DS finally did try to activate, they failed, so even the formations that could potentially have mounted up were still facing a threat at the beginning of the next turn. The remainder of the IG advanced very carefully, keeping their very tight placement because they knew they were out of assault range of unmounted troops.
As you can probably tell, with all operational momentum at the control of the IG, they slowly ground forward, happily trading a few casualties for similar numbers of marines and hemming me in.
=========
Observations from the AABS:
First, this is based on a comparison to my normal SM methods. I've had reasonable success with them, but they simply don't work with the Salamanders. In a nutshell, I use Tac formations to form a line and lots of fast attack formations to set up, support, and execute assaults. My normal "mud marine" list would be something like 3 Tac formations, 3 bike or speeder formations (2/1 or 1/2 depending on other AT/MW sources), a loaded Thawk, and then fill in with whatever I felt like playing that day, including AA sources.
The Salamanders list is slow. Bone-crushingly, agonizingly slow. SMs tend to suffer from slowing down once the Rhinos start getting shot, but there are usually enough fast threats and deep strikes that the infantry can get into position to remain a threat even when the Rhinos are killed. Salamanders don't have that luxury.
On top of being slow, the larger formations mean that it's lower in activations. It might play something like Black Legion CSM lists, except that the CSM have different tools which the Salamanders don't have.
To make up for the slowness and low activation count, this list is almost obligated to max out the 1/3 allowance. As an example, TRC's recent batrep against the IG included all the 0-1 options available in the list (speeder, scout, assault). There's nothing wrong with doing that, but I think it is a potential problem if it's the only way to make the list work.
The Prometheus doesn't seem to have much point. The list is strong on FF, having various MW and IC FF options. Most of the formations also have good (for SM) shooting options, especially if you are in assault range. To optimize offensive capabilities, the Salamander player is going to want to use fire/support/assault combos whenever possible. Combined assaults actually result in fewer attacks and effectively reduces an already low activation count. It would be a truly exceptional situation for the Salamanders to want to use a combined assault. I don't think I would buy a Prometheus except in a very large army because it seems more a contingency item than something to plan a battle around. At its price, that only works in large armies.
The Sal Devs radically change the character of the formation. SM Devs are one of their few formations that can actually expect to do more damage by firing than by assaulting. Being forced to add Sal Devs with 15cm range, means that simply stops being true. A 250-350 point area denial garrison of Devs is feasible. A 375 formation of Dev + Sal Devs, which provides no better area denial than the 250 point formation is not. In the core list, providing a base of fire is a serious option and is a strong follow-up role after an air assault on a flanking formation.
Again going to TRC's batrep against IG, all the Devs were delivered via air assault, right into the center of the enemy where targets would remain plentiful. That's really the only option for the formation.
Whirlwinds - in discussing this particular battle, we felt like Whirlwinds might actually have made a big difference. Having just a handful of templates would have forced the IG to spread out. A weaker castle deployment and looser line would likely have opened up some opportunities.
AP/AT/MW - I felt like the list was pretty heavily weighted towards AP if you take the Salamander options. Even with the added availability of Multi-meltas, I felt like it was weak on the AT side. The MW is all short-ranged and a 45cm AT shot is just much more versatile than a 15cm MW shot. It may not kill something at a particular critical point, but over the course of a game it will usually do more.
Overall, it seems the options for making the list work are 1) lots of restricted points formations, 2) lots of deep strikes, or 3) some combination of the above (again, as evidenced by TRC's batrep). With either option the number of actual Salamander infantry units is going to be minimal. A line army of Salamanders might work with someone else, but I don't see a way of making it work with my play style. The end result seems to be an army that seems un-Salamander-ish.
All that said, I really don't have any good ideas on how to change it so the Salamander options are viable in more diverse strategies.
The only thing that popped into my head that seemed characteristic was an incendiary, Ignore Cover version of a Whirlwind. I have no idea whether that has the slightest background justification, but it certainly seems in keeping with Salamander style to me.
_________________
Neal
|
Wiped out turn one by one Eldar activation!
) but just to brainstorm some stuff...