Anything over 50:50 is and advantage.
Which is why I asked how much. And also, why?
Zagman said:
There are more than 3 shooting threats thanks to the Heavy Incinerators.
1. If you want to bring the HIs to bear, you will be in charge range of hammers.
2. While capable of causing significant wounds, full 2" gaps will help reduce it, and everybody gets their PA save as well. Given the 1 turn each DK might have to fire before being killed by hammers, this is not a great concern.
3. Mech armies couldn't care less about HIs. Since mech is the norm in competitive environments, this is the baseline against which you measure effectiveness. My point stands: you have 3 shooting units max. This is not enough.
Zagman said:
Also, each of those threats is brining significant firepower upon each target with an effective 30" range. Your aforementioned list brings a comparable amount of firepower on the move with a reduction in durability.
Same or better firepower with significantly greater mobility. Advantage Interceptor build. "Durability" depends on how you define it. Against outright wounds from anti-infantry weapons, the Paladins are the clear winners. But against swathes of firepower, the MSU army wins. (
Any MSU army, not just the Interceptor army.) The reason is because the focused unit army like your Draigo army pours points into very few units. Thus it can only damage 3 units at a time. MSU armies can absorb the losses of so few units and keep on clicking at near capacity.
I tend to favor the "durablity" offered by MSU over the "durabilty" offered by rock units. I tend to think MSU is, generally speaking, more potent tactically, more flexible, and more capable. It appears you disagree.
Zagman said:
How would Nids "silence those guns right quick"? Seriously, how?
In my game two nights ago I dropped the Doom down next to one unit, drained a few wounds off, and then charged into combat with them. Stuck in combat, can't shoot, 3++ prevented it from dying. Next turn boosted gants swamped them. Combined with more soul siphoning ... end of unit.
Another unit I nailed with a Mawloc, stripped half of their wounds away so they became just normal terminators. They destroyed the mawloc with shooting and a follow-up assault, but that kept them in place long enough for boosted gants and trailing genestealers (w/Broodlord) to chomp them.
The rest of my army went after the rest of his army, which consisted of a 3rd Paladin unit (w/ Draigo) and psyflemen. It wasn't pretty for the GKs as I had a lot of MCs, guns (including a Tfex and hive guard), and gribblies running around. Many more points and many more units vs fewer points and fewer units. Barring exceptionally awful dice luck on my part, the end for them was a foregone conclusion.
Zagman said:
Without and significant ID firepower coupled with most of their units being unable to stand in CC. How is this such a simple feat? Wound allocation and paladin durability makes that quite difficult to do for most armies.
I suspect it's both because people don't build proper armies and because they fail at both proper target priority and army unit coordination.
Zagman said:
I have never ever stated that DriagoWing is a tournament caliber army, ever; contrary to your insinuations. It is strong enough to play in semi competitive environments.
Well, you keep using the word "competitive" in combination with "Draigowing". Even the "semi-" doesn't hide the fact that you actually think the army is good for something. :rotfl: I disagree. I am totally willing to agree to disagree with you on this one. But will also continue to debate it with you as long as you are willing to keep trying to convince me otherwise. I'm not gonna change my mind, just so you know.
I don't expect to change your mind, either. The debate exists for others to read and draw their own conclusions.
Zagman said:
The effort you spend on your superior attitude could be much better spent taking a page out of jy2's book in creating well written illustrative battle reports. That would be a much more efficient use of your impressive list building skills and exceptional opponent base.
I have written a few batreps and posted them on LO. (Go the the batrep subforum and search for topics started by me.) They take upwards of 3, 4, or more hours to write. And that's without taking pictures, which I am loathe to do while focusing on the the game. 10 minutes to post here, or multiple hours to write a batrep....
I just think I have better ways to spend my time than that, is all. :rotfl: You already stated you don't trust batreps anyway, trying to persuade you is not my real goal... what's the point, exactly?
Cole Markgraf is a regular opponent of mine. Ask him if you don't believe me.
And he beats me more than I beat him. Which should come as no surprise, since I readily admit he's a stronger player than me. But I do win games agaisnt him, and have even beaten his winning armies.
The real question is: why is this kind of information important to you? Why do I have to show off my game prowess to get any kind of credit from you? Very curious to me. If we both recognize each other as skilled players of the game, our tactical discussion should suffice to "prove" anything we need to know about our understanding of the game and our armies.