Bel'kro wrote:In that case, how many breachers are too many? If we start treating them like a decoy unit, then obviously we don't want to invest too much into them, but they still need to be a large enough threat to warrant the extra attention.
Panzer wrote:Interesting idea but I really cringe at the thought of taking a unit of Firewarrior purposely without transport just for them to die. We are not the Imperium ffs!
Wedrujacy wrote:Panzer wrote:Interesting idea but I really cringe at the thought of taking a unit of Firewarrior purposely without transport just for them to die. We are not the Imperium ffs!
Are you sure... just remind yourself what has been done by Etherals at Damocles Gulf when they left their people (including Farsigh).
Shas'O Bentu'nan wrote:Consider, a breacher is only SLIGHTLY more expensive than a ork boy... 2 squads of 10 breachers with a guardian drone in each for about the same points as 30 boyz. You can totally zerg breachers!
Shas'O Bentu'nan wrote:We have ethereals and guardian drones that give mek and painboy bonuses for cheaper. 26 breachers and guardian drones plus ethereal for less points than 30 boys with mek and painboy.
Breachers can put the hurt on heavy targets a lot better than boys can. We are down only one toughness but have a better save before invulnerable. Our ethereal gives far more versitile bonuses too.
Panzer wrote:Sometimes I wish I could "like" your posts, Arka. Very good indepths comparison without going too much into detail of army building (which would only favour Ork Boyz even more btw).
Maybe when we get out own Strats will bring them out again to justify getting extra CP's, in tournaments that require a battalion, bringing 3*5 strike teams is probably a better option.
And this is why I decided to build my lists full of Breachers on foot, to walk valiantly into the fray, get shot in the face (yay), or blast the enemy to ashes (yay too).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests