Paul
09-02-2011, 09:37 AM
Hello everyone!
It's been over one year since this thread: http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=5985 in which I asked about playing against an Armored Battlegroup.
After this year, and gathering data, I have determined several important things:
1) The 10 Leman Russ list is WEAKER than the same list with valkyries, guardsmen, and artillery ... a regular codex list.
1a) That being said, the LRBT is almost immune to long-ranged antitank shooting.... but pays for it.
2) The wide variety of Leman Russes means that having a balanced list is necessary - 10 Vanquishers < 2 Vanquishers and assorted variants.
2a) This means that listbuilding is actually extremely important; with only 10 units to work with, having an unbalanced list leads to extremely one-sided games against most armies.
3) The Armored Battlegroup's tactics are totally different from most armies, but tactical acumen is required still, and is arguably even more necessary.
4) Similar to number 3, Target Priority is the most problematic issue faced by Leman Russes. With outflanking and mechanization, it is hard to significantly damage antitank units before they get close enough to do damage.
5) Even with excellent target priority, a tactical squad with a flamer and ML can still kill a Leman Russ with their krak grenades... this means that some firepower must ALWAYS be diverted from the primary target in order to suppress other enemy elements.
5a) This significantly weakens the available firepower for the destruction of hard targets.
6) The Armored Battlegroup is especially strong against other Armored Battlegroups (perhaps ironically) and is not terribly strong against horde infantry (also unexpected).
7) The Armored Battlegroup relies on enemy mistakes more than most armies; if the other player makes few mistakes, it is hard to kill anything other than Rhinos even in KP games.
8) That said, it is especially strong against armies which lack mechanisms to give themselves cover saves like foot guard; even then, it suffers if the other player utilizes LOS and the available terrain-cover.
9) The only army that cannot deal with the 10 LRBT list is Foot Guard with no veterans (or STs) who did not purchase krak grenades. Even a Marine list with 3x Devastators, 6x Tactical, Captain, and Librarian with no upgrades can simply bum-rush the tanks and overload their target priority.
9a) This is provided that cover is used.
10) Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Armored Battlegroup list is, if not equal to, weaker than the available units from Codex: Imperial Guard.
Conclusion:
I will continue to play Armored Battlegroup with 10 LRBTs. It is my heartthrob army and also my first. However, I encourage everyone who wishes to play it to give it a chance, and I encourage every opponent of the idea to take up at least a few games of Armored Battlegroup and see if it is really as tough as it seems at first glance.
It's been over one year since this thread: http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=5985 in which I asked about playing against an Armored Battlegroup.
After this year, and gathering data, I have determined several important things:
1) The 10 Leman Russ list is WEAKER than the same list with valkyries, guardsmen, and artillery ... a regular codex list.
1a) That being said, the LRBT is almost immune to long-ranged antitank shooting.... but pays for it.
2) The wide variety of Leman Russes means that having a balanced list is necessary - 10 Vanquishers < 2 Vanquishers and assorted variants.
2a) This means that listbuilding is actually extremely important; with only 10 units to work with, having an unbalanced list leads to extremely one-sided games against most armies.
3) The Armored Battlegroup's tactics are totally different from most armies, but tactical acumen is required still, and is arguably even more necessary.
4) Similar to number 3, Target Priority is the most problematic issue faced by Leman Russes. With outflanking and mechanization, it is hard to significantly damage antitank units before they get close enough to do damage.
5) Even with excellent target priority, a tactical squad with a flamer and ML can still kill a Leman Russ with their krak grenades... this means that some firepower must ALWAYS be diverted from the primary target in order to suppress other enemy elements.
5a) This significantly weakens the available firepower for the destruction of hard targets.
6) The Armored Battlegroup is especially strong against other Armored Battlegroups (perhaps ironically) and is not terribly strong against horde infantry (also unexpected).
7) The Armored Battlegroup relies on enemy mistakes more than most armies; if the other player makes few mistakes, it is hard to kill anything other than Rhinos even in KP games.
8) That said, it is especially strong against armies which lack mechanisms to give themselves cover saves like foot guard; even then, it suffers if the other player utilizes LOS and the available terrain-cover.
9) The only army that cannot deal with the 10 LRBT list is Foot Guard with no veterans (or STs) who did not purchase krak grenades. Even a Marine list with 3x Devastators, 6x Tactical, Captain, and Librarian with no upgrades can simply bum-rush the tanks and overload their target priority.
9a) This is provided that cover is used.
10) Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Armored Battlegroup list is, if not equal to, weaker than the available units from Codex: Imperial Guard.
Conclusion:
I will continue to play Armored Battlegroup with 10 LRBTs. It is my heartthrob army and also my first. However, I encourage everyone who wishes to play it to give it a chance, and I encourage every opponent of the idea to take up at least a few games of Armored Battlegroup and see if it is really as tough as it seems at first glance.