I gave it a try last night and had similar results, its an army to get a draw rather than being that powerful

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

In my game the Marines had a good go at seizing the blitz objective in turn 4 to achieve both the blitz and the take and hold victory conditions but it was obviously not a sure thing an dthey also lost their own blitz to a tank company. While the Imperial Guard definitely were aided by winning the initiative in turn 4 a more savvy player than yours truly may have pulled the Regimental HQ back out of engagement range earlier.

Also since I played it solo I think it's safe to say that both sides were of equal skill and that if the scout spam had been unbeatable, that should have been shown more clearly. I can see the strength in the list but also the weakness. The combination of a lack of AT and BP means that at least most Steel Legion builds are full of counters. Bunch up and keep those vehicles close by fellows. I also think that the scouts would suffer against titans as clipping them doesn't really work. Sure the Warlord helps, but what is sauce to the goose is sauce to the gander. The greatest weakness of the list however is that you place most of your units in advance to the opponent. It thus became very easy for the Steel Legion to place both the Tank Company and the Shadowsword to counter the Warlord.

Good report, thanks.
On the style, perhaps you could combine both the detailed / simplified activations with the thoughts / intentions behind them, and possibly even the intended strategy of both armies and how that changes from turn to turn.

Couple of thoughts on the game itself:

• I note that the SM army used only had 12 activations through using other more expensive formations. I may be wrong, but suspect that one theme is for several scout formations to fire at AT targets to mount up BMs for firing. Having even more scout formations is a key element to achieve this.
• The intention behind adding commanders to some scout formations is to permit several to be combined in assaults, preferably infiltrating into b-b to maximize on their CC value - I don't think that happened. Again, having even more scout formations is a key element to maintaining the activation advantage while using multiple formations in assault.
• The Warlord is a threat in being - moving it early in a turn removes that threat. However it is also superb in a support role in assaults. Bottom line here is that timing is everything with this beast.

Thanks Ginger, that is a good comment.

The reason I wanted to bring the Whirlwinds was to prevent the Guard from bunching up too much making clipping assaults more difficult. However, as the Guard player I decided that it was worth the risk and bunched up anyway. The Marine artillery then successfully fired on one of the Guard batteries rather than exploit the dense formations. Perhaps thus was a mistake. Also, LoM was very specific in the instructions that 8 scouts and a Warlord were mandatory and the rest optional so that's what I went with.

The reason there was no combined assaults was indeed a lack of available scout formations. The opportunity of one was developing on the left flank but then the Imperial Guard won initiative and moved out of range. A rare incident I'll admit but it happened nonetheless. On the right flank the marines suffered from having their army deployed in advance of the Guard which meant that they were facing a weighted flank and thus heavily outnumbered. Once again, I think this is the main disadvantage with the build.

I can definitely see how I played the Warlord suboptimally from that point of view. With most of the Guard on overwatch the Marines easily outactivqted them and should have used that advantage better.

Last thought is that you probably still need to concentrate the scout formations in a single area - this possibly means making better use of march manoeuvers to "refuse" a flank with a few formations that are intended to delay rather than engage the opponents etc.

Thank you Karegak.

Ginger's comments are right on the spot. 2-3 Scout dets. infiltrating in a combined assault against the leman russes should be enough to win the assault, and then Superior acivations kill the leman russes off through simply placing BMs. Protective IG scout screens can be removed T1. This tactic works even better with terminators +1-2 scout dets.

Using scout mobility + some other scouts as screen to stop the rest of the opponent's army to set up that important BTS assault is an important move in the arsenal of the army.

With regards to the Warlord, it is not necessary. In the initial scout builds I played it a lot, but I have since played with Terminators and Warhounds instead with very good results.

I will post a couple batreps as soon as I get the chance.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

No problem, it was an interesting exercise in itself.

Contemplated playing a game with this type of list last night. However in the end I just couldn't get myself up for doing it. From you guys that have played it, is it really worth playing?

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

Not really, you could get a draw most of the time just due to having bits and pieces left everywhere but it really lacks hitting power. For the plan to work, like many theoryhammer issues, the opponent has to pretty much cooperate in what you want to do

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Well in the spirit of scientific inquiry I like to see if I can reproduce the results of somebody else's experiment. We'll see if I do it again though as it got awfully late and I was very tired at the end. I wouldn't mind playing someone more used to the list who could show me how to use it more properly.

Played a first game with this tonight vs Tyranid. A 3 formation and then 2 formation firefight vs bug formations beginning of turn 2, and a newish bug player meant it was all all over mid-turn 3 before I'd even activated half my formations. My Terminators were still in reserve. Will post a report soon. I'd like to play with and against it vs more experienced players though. I've always found marine popcorn armies in the hands of a good player quite deadly and this shares many features with those despicable things! Not sure it is any better or worse than them...

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Markonz, I think the mis match in player skill was probably where it went wrong, I'd suggest swapping sides next time, after all if the marine list really is overpowered then a less experienced player should beat a more experienced one, or at least hold their own....

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

I think I'm with Steve54 on this. I can see how this list could achieve a draw in the hands of a player who has an understanding of how epic's VP system works (the warlord should negate at least 2 but should be attempting for 3 of your opponents VP conditions) but I'm not sure if I can see it winning all that often. Wouldn't a similar list based on land speeders be more powerful in terms of utility (Skimmer, Scout and a 30+cm move are the most powerful combination of abilities in epic IMO) and killing power (MW shooting and FF). Although, a Land Speeder list would not really be a popcorn list anymore as it can only get 12 activations at best.

This describes the dilemma quite well.

A "pop-corn" list really needs a formation ratio of ~3:2 when compared with the opposition. This means at least 13 formations and preferably 15 or more. This in turn requires an average formation cost of 200. However, obviously an army of 15x 200 point formations is impractical, which is why you need to use formations costing less than 200 points to provide some variation in cost and abilities.

This point about average costs is why the 200 points 'barrier' is so important when designing lists. Having formations that cost 175 or less risk them being spammed or "pop-corned" especially if they are fairly resilient like Marine Scouts. Indeed, for every formation under 200 points, the list designer needs to consider those formations just higher than 200 points and whether they provide an unacceptably high synergy when combined.

LoTM's list using a Warlord + 13x other formations is a reasonable example of a pop-corn list - though he admits that this can be done with other key formations (which also provides more points to be used as upgrades or more expensive formations).

A possible alternative army that might appeal to Steve and others, to demonstrate the point being made by LoTM is:-

400 Terminator +Chaplain
350 Terminator
275 Warhound
275 Warhound
200 ThunderHawk
200 ThunderHawk
200 Scouts + commander
200 Scouts + commander
600 4x Scouts
300 2x ThunderBolts

One or both of the THawks could be replaced by Landspeeders etc, but if used, they should be used to pick up the Terminators (after they teleport and assault) - this way the separate activations are preserved. Equally the cheaper Terminator could be split into a further Scout and Landspeeder to increase the number of formations to 15. Obviously if Landspeeders (or Marine Bikes) are used, then they should be given commander to preserve the potential for combined assaults.

(On a side-note, this is why I maintain that Warhound singletons should be restricted to 0-1 per army)

Agreed with Ginger. The Warlord was just part of an example. The issue I am trying to point out is scouts.

Other example:

- 8 scouts
- 2 captains
- 1 Terminators
- 3 Warhounds
- Landing craft/Terminators

Put one of the captains with terminators for BTS.

As an added remark, it needs to be pointed out that an army that can insure a draw and win at least 50 % of its games is pretty broken by all standards.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell