Hey folks, SinSynn here.
Something that's made me pretty happy of late is seeing some of my favorite bloggers take up Flames of War.
The guys from the Back 40k, Stelek from Yes the Truth Hurts, and my buddy Purgatus from Best Overall have all grabbed some models and a free mini-rulebook and, like myself, are writing stuffs about it.
It's nice to see the conversation leap off the FoW forums and out here, where semi-interested people might get lured in...
...and trapped.
;)
Heh. One of ussss....One of ussss...
 |
| *Now go buy tankie-tanks!* |
Now I'm sure Purgy is looking forward to the epic debates we'll be having in the future as much as I am, but there's another reason I'm happy- all of the dudes I mentioned (excepting myself. Heh), are pretty smart fellas, and I'm gonna learn something. I look forward to reading more FoW stuffs from all of them.
So...now seems like a good time to talk FoW tactics. Let's do that.
Here are some tactical 'sticky spots' in Flames:
-Are four tanks really better than five?
This is an interesting thing to think about, actually. Due to FoW's 'more than half' rule, a four tank platoon seems the logical choice, since both four and five tank platoons check morale after three losses.
In theory, this makes the fifth tank a potential throwaway, despite the added firepower and increased assault potential it may add.
But what happens when you've got two dead and one bailed in a four tank platoon?
That's right- you take a morale check. The five tank platoon doesn't.
Situational? Yes.
Does that situation happen often? Yes.
Does this make the whole 'five tank vs. four tank' argument not so cut and dried? You betcha.
I've been seesawing in my own lists of late, and it's something I'll be playing with.
The funny thing about tank platoons is...they die.
 |
| *Testify, T-34* |
They die, or they get shot up and run away. Either/Or.
Tank platoons will receive focused AT fire until this happens. A tank list will suffer platoon losses in-game, and that's a fact. Especially now in Version 3, where they'll have a harder time assaulting successfully., since armor breaks off after two damaging hits.
Clearly, keeping that platoon on the table so it can do it's thing is paramount, but do we go with the four tank or five tank platoon?
Well, we want to ensure we put as many platoons on the table, don't we? That brings us to our next 'sticky point.'
-I need six platoons, at least.
Like the tank platoon question, I used to think this was an easy one.
Since 'more than half' of my army must remain off-table in missions with reserves, having two platoons to handle objectives and a mobile element while on Defense makes sense.
On the Attack, I'd like to leave a lil' somethin' behind to discourage counter-attacks. I'd also like to have enough 'oomph' to push my opponent off a thinly defended objective before his reserves arrive, if I get the opportunity.
Six platoons seems a logical choice.
By design, the 'more than half' mechanic encourages an even number of platoons in your army list.
Also, ten of the thirteen missions in Version 3 feature reserves in one form or another, so your list better be structured to deal with them.
Before you start building lists based on 'making six platoons,' however, it's more important to have a plan. Every unit in your list should be capable of contributing something, and not just coming in last from reserves and hiding.
For many reasons, sometimes it's a better idea to bring less platoons (four platoon lists are not out of the question), especially if your plan involves assaulting something....and it better....
 |
| *I was gonna go with, 'did someone order extra crispy?' but then I thought...nah* |
-What's it take to win?
Ultimately, games of Flames of War are won in the Assault Phase. There's simply no way around it.
Even a list like the 352 Infanteriedivision from Earth & Steel (a Fortification list), which will technically Defend against anything in the game, cannot hope to win every time via breaking the Attacker. Then there's Fair Fight Missions to consider, as well.
A typical three mission tournament will feature one Defensive Battle, one Mobile Battle, and one Fair Fight.
Eventually, you will have to assault an objective to win.
So, combining the things I've mentioned, it's tactically important to A) Choose the right size and number of platoons for your list, and B) Have a plan, and that plan should include Assaulting stuffs.
Which begs the most important 'sticky spot' of all...
-What list to run?
Flames of War offers so many list possibilities that it's really hard to pick one when you're first beginning the game.
A quick look at some Tournament results would reveal some contenders for 'most winningest list, ' though. My own experiences pretty much back up the statistics I've seen.
Things like the Russian hordes (foot or armored, it doesn't matter), British 7th AD, German Panzergrenadier Lehr, American Rifle Companies (foot or armored, it doesn't matter), and Paratroopers from every Nation that has them are pretty reliable performers.
Only one of them, the American Armored Rifle Company, which is a mech list without the Armored Assault rule, is especially tricky to run. The others are pretty straight forward.
One of them, the British 7th AD (a Reluctant rated armor list), got kinda nerfed in Version 3 due to some new rules (the aforementioned Tank Assault change), and maybe the Russian Armored Horde list did as well...but really, they're still both pretty good lists.
Still, things like the Welsh Guards and Finns show up, as well as wacky stuff like the Fortification lists and...Cavalry.
Cavalry EATS infantry lists. Who woulda thunk?
 |
| *Cavalry? Fer real? Yep...seen it happen* |
My experiences at FoW tournaments has taught me one thing: You can and will run into a crazy list that will do horrible things to your posterior, despite whatever 'sure thing' you've constructed. FoW is not a game where you can count on seeing only a handful of standardized, popular builds. There are simply too many variants to possibly account for everything when you're planning your list.
So many specialty lists show up at Tournaments that I always end up scratching my head at some PDF I've never seen, or some dude will run cavalry, or whatever.
Cavalry, I tell you. You just never know.
It is fair to say good place to start is with one of lists above, which are fairly archetypal, nationality-wise. So there ya go.
I actually don't recommend the cavalry, cuz you'll probably bump into the guy that bought the tank list if you've got luck like mine, and tanks do bad things to cavalry.
:)
There are many more 'sticky points' in FoW, and many more tactics to debate over.
-How many Infantry platoons, how much artillery, how much...everything?
-Do I really need Recce, or air support, or AA?
Then there's a lotta little things, like...Snipers.
Holy crap- have you seen the new rules for snipers? Snipers are like 50 points! How is that...I don't see...
O_o
I need to work a sniper or two into my Grenadiers list, immediately, just to find out how friggin' annoying they can be!
:D
I'll be playing a lot of Version 3 FoW in the coming months, and I'll be trying to work out all these 'sticky spots' on the tabletop.
Wish me luck!
Until next time, folks, exit with catchphrase!
-SinSynn
No comments:
Post a Comment