Exceptions, the more I think about it the harder it is to think of any. Possibly (possibly) Leman Russ, gunwagons with Odd Boyz and anything with AA.
I'm just talking about tanks here really, not artillery or APCs. The reason why not artillery is cause they don't have to move much. APC's prove their worth shifting the best units (infantry) about (though landers are much better at this of course) and providing them with some cover.

Yeah, the threat of losing units to dangerous terrain means you don't get to hit mods. Also tanks don't get cover saves. A 5+ save tank isn't as survivable as a ork boyz unit or guardsman in some ruins. Also, sometimes the tanks want to be close to the infantry but that can be limited or awkward because the infantry is in terrain.
Most of the WE that are taken are walkers and are reliable in dangerous terrain, supporting infantry better.

As has been pointed out, they don't have more firepower than infantry (except perhaps at the start of the game) and usually less CC and FF ability. They do have speed to either support assaults or grab objectives. But so do many infantry and even some war engine choices.

Only a Reg HQ co. can have two leaders. The infantry Co. cannot.
Unless you've been playing your junior Commanders as having Leader by accident.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Mech. Inf. Co. has 21 AP5+ shots, that's quite tasty.


As to armour, I also like to add a Land Raider to Devastators, which tends to keep them mobile throughout the battle.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Vehicles are vulnerable to suppression reducing their firepower, however, I agree with earlier comments that this is why they need to be used in conjunction with infantry, so that your opponent has a range of targets to worry about, making it far more difficult for him/her just to focus fire on your armoured vehicles.

As an Eldar player, I take a Falcon formation, and I find it very effective, due to its firepower, and skimmers have the advantage of being able to avoid terrain, providing you are careful with your moves.

I suspect that there are some vehicle options which are not as effective as some infantry formations, but I feel that it's not possible to generalise, and that even where there are problems, good strategy and tactics can help to mitigate issues.

_________________

Oh and a second thing for Rug:


Yeah, but a Russ Company is awesome in an Engagement.

Anyway, you think Griffons are awesome, so what do you know?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I think tanks (proper tanks, i.e. assult tanks not arty) should be pretty good in FF assaults. Better than infantry, and tough too. But very week in CC. Complicated I know but I'd almost be tempted to boost tanks armour saves against FF hits, and decrease the save against CC. Almost universally increase the FF of many tanks too. Especially those with AP weapons

True, but probalbly not as much damage as the big assault that SM like to prep for the beginning of turn 2 (using the infantry..).



You might use predators in every game Hena, but I would offer that most SM armies don't (perhaps one of the tournament experts can comment on this?). And I am not sure that one formation of SM tanks, present in some list, presents a strong argument, it sounds more like an occasional exception.

The Scions list I would also class as an exception. For every game that uses the Scions list there are probably 100+ using regular SMs.

The Eldar using 2 SoV formations is not unusual, but do those formations have firestorms? Because the requirement to take falcons to access Eldar AA is an exception I have already highlighted. And I offer that the AA is the main reason those formations are taken, not the falcons.


Is it as good as the same points spent on infantry or WE? (Ignoring the fact that the Leman Russ is probably the exception anyway)
Is a Russ company better than a Reaver Titan in an assault?
Is it better than an Infantry Company PLUS a Mech. Infantry Company?

Or to take the example to one of the other lists..
Is a BL armoured company better at assaults than the equivalent points in Retinues or Termies?
Are gunwagons better than a warband or KoS?

As SG said there ARE times when good shooting power is helpful during a battle. But I would offer that EA is quite deliberately setup so that assaults, not shooting, are the dominant factor in games. Tanks, as a unit that is costed for its shooting power, can seem to suffer in comparison to other units due to that.

I think there are some good points here.

Personally, I find armor satisfactory but I agree that it's very difficult to use it as a main battle force. The BM/hackdown system means that if you make armor a center-line unit, the enemy can often bring enough firepower to bear to break the armor and are then close enough to chase them for hackdowns, which destroys a lot of expensive units quickly. I think that moves most armor into support roles and makes massed tanks a very uncommon thing in Epic armies. You either use them as flanking units or support them heavily.

Using them on a flank limits both the firepower than can be brought to bear and the ability of the enemy to divert to pursue broken formations. Generalist armor works on the flanks, since you don't know for sure what you might face.

Massed support forces the enemy to tackle multiple threats simultaneously so even if they concentrate and break the armor there are enough follow on threats that the armor can recover and get back in the fight before the enemy has a chance to hunt them down. Specialist armor works best in the main body of troops where it can usually perform its preferred role.

Out of all of the armor formations in the game, I think the IG Russ Company is the only one that's big enough, with the right ratio of cost and durability to anchor the main battle line, and even then it still needs a reasonable amount of support.

Aren't almost all tanks, save for some chaos and ork specialized ones IIRC, good in FF and really bad in CC? I know the Russ is CC 6+, and you can't get much worse than that. As an IG player I'd love to see increased FF stats on tanks, but that's just my bias shining through since it would probably hurt in the balance department. Decreasing their save wouldn't be that good either - just because infantrymen have knocked out unsupported tanks on a myriad of occasions in real life, doesn't mean it was easy... I'm sure the exchange ratio of infantrymen to tanks would make us cringe if that stat exists somewhere... Of course, there are notable exceptions in history: the Russians in Berlin vs. panzerfausts and again in Grozny (Chechnya), the Israelis vs. Egyptians in 1973. There were tanks getting knocked out left and right in those instances...

One thing I will gripe about: how can the hydra only be a 5+ in FF? Again, my IG bias...

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean

Yes but no better than infantry at FF. So what's the point? Tanks don't stand out as a hard moving fortress in the middle of an assault, that needing taking out at close range by infantry.

I'd also consider messing with the dangerous terrain rules radically to something like: units can enter dangerous terrain in a single move no problem but may not move out again within that move and once inside may only move 5cm per move. No 6+ test to see if anything dies or anything like that. Applies to skimmers too (though they my pop up and simply not enter the terrain and fly over it)
Walkers count as infantry for dangerous terrain.(the 1 in 36 dice roll is largely a waste of time).

I'd like to see tanks embedded in forests or ruins setting traps and stuff like that and as slow but mobile fortresses for infantry in assaults. Not hanging around the city limits!

Which infantry are you talking about? Yeah, those cheesey superhuman astartes have 4+ as well, but guardsmen are 5+ in FF. Last time I checked my math, 4+ > 5+

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean