Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.
I think you misunderstand what 'holding the line' means. Usually something 'holds the line' so that SOMETHING ELSE will do the killing: magic, missiles, monsters, cavalry, characters, etc. Hammer and Anvil type stuff. One unit sets it up by holding it in place, another unit knocks it down.
Hmm, I always see it used as a "stand here and don't let anyone past you". Generally in a "don't let anyone through this gate", "don't let anyone down this tunnel". etc.
In media, it's almost always a "hold the line here while we evacuate the civilians", "hold the line here till I can deactivate the computer", type situations. I don't see the "hold the line while we pick them off at range" variation as often.
Standard US military training in 'assault fortified position' drills usually includes a 'line holding force' that isn't supposed to kill. Just fire enough that it gets their attention and makes them duck. So a different splinter group can actually break in while they're distracted. Like, the movies isn't actually how it's done.
But one's cinematic or real life context aside, the context of this thread is entirely different.
We're talking about Total War units in a Total War setting, where traditional Hammer and Anvil is used. NOT "you go and I'll hold em off at the tunnel" tactics.
And all the ACTUALLY good at "mowing them down at the tunnel" units weren't included in the poll.
I feel like the poll listing only defensive infantry in a Total War scenario kinda implies a 'Hammer and Anvil' definition of holding the line. Although certainly in other settings or scenarios, other types of 'holding the line' exists.
I think you misunderstand what 'holding the line' means. Usually something 'holds the line' so that SOMETHING ELSE will do the killing: magic, missiles, monsters, cavalry, characters, etc. Hammer and Anvil type stuff. One unit sets it up by holding it in place, another unit knocks it down.
Hmm, I always see it used as a "stand here and don't let anyone past you". Generally in a "don't let anyone through this gate", "don't let anyone down this tunnel". etc.
In media, it's almost always a "hold the line here while we evacuate the civilians", "hold the line here till I can deactivate the computer", type situations. I don't see the "hold the line while we pick them off at range" variation as often.
Standard US military training in 'assault fortified position' drills usually includes a 'line holding force' that isn't supposed to kill. Just fire enough that it gets their attention and makes them duck. So a different splinter group can actually break in while they're distracted. Like, the movies isn't actually how it's done.
But one's cinematic or real life context aside, the context of this thread is entirely different.
We're talking about Total War units in a Total War setting, where traditional Hammer and Anvil is used. NOT "you go and I'll hold em off at the tunnel" tactics.
And all the ACTUALLY good at "mowing them down at the tunnel" units weren't included in the poll.
I feel like the poll listing only defensive infantry in a Total War scenario kinda implies a 'Hammer and Anvil' definition of holding the line. Although certainly in other settings or scenarios, other types of 'holding the line' exists.
.........
As someone who has been an Infantryman with actual combat experience for 15 years in both the US Marine Corps and the US Army what you just said is such utter ****. There is not a single tactic in assaulting a fortified position where an element is not suppose to kill the enemy. There is not a single tactic where an element is just suppose to make the enemy duck.
What you are referring to is a support by fire position but you whole misrepresented what that does. It's job is not to hold the line. It's job is provide superior fire support on an enemy position through accurate fires and suppression to allow a manueveres element to close with and secure the position. They have the same opportunity to kill the enemy as the assaulting element. There is not a specific force that does this. Medium machine guns and above will always be used in support by fire positions but all infantrymen are trained to do be both support by fire and assault elements as these are fluid on a battlefield.
I can also point to a few films where the assaults are done fairly accurately. So I further have no understanding what point you are trying to make here.
I think you misunderstand what 'holding the line' means. Usually something 'holds the line' so that SOMETHING ELSE will do the killing: magic, missiles, monsters, cavalry, characters, etc. Hammer and Anvil type stuff. One unit sets it up by holding it in place, another unit knocks it down.
Hmm, I always see it used as a "stand here and don't let anyone past you". Generally in a "don't let anyone through this gate", "don't let anyone down this tunnel". etc.
In media, it's almost always a "hold the line here while we evacuate the civilians", "hold the line here till I can deactivate the computer", type situations. I don't see the "hold the line while we pick them off at range" variation as often.
Standard US military training in 'assault fortified position' drills usually includes a 'line holding force' that isn't supposed to kill. Just fire enough that it gets their attention and makes them duck. So a different splinter group can actually break in while they're distracted. Like, the movies isn't actually how it's done.
But one's cinematic or real life context aside, the context of this thread is entirely different.
We're talking about Total War units in a Total War setting, where traditional Hammer and Anvil is used. NOT "you go and I'll hold em off at the tunnel" tactics.
And all the ACTUALLY good at "mowing them down at the tunnel" units weren't included in the poll.
I feel like the poll listing only defensive infantry in a Total War scenario kinda implies a 'Hammer and Anvil' definition of holding the line. Although certainly in other settings or scenarios, other types of 'holding the line' exists.
.........
As someone who has been an Infantryman with actual combat experience for 15 years in both the US Marine Corps and the US Army what you just said is such utter ****. There is not a single tactic in assaulting a fortified position where an element is not suppose to kill the enemy. There is not a single tactic where an element is just suppose to make the enemy duck.
What you are referring to is a support by fire position but you whole misrepresented what that does. It's job is not to hold the line. It's job is provide superior fire support on an enemy position through accurate fires and suppression to allow a manueveres element to close with and secure the position. They have the same opportunity to kill the enemy as the assaulting element. There is not a specific force that does this. Medium machine guns and above will always be used in support by fire positions but all infantrymen are trained to do be both support by fire and assault elements as these are fluid on a battlefield.
I can also point to a few films where the assaults are done fairly accurately. So I further have no understanding what point you are trying to make here.
If you want to nitpick about suppression fire killing people that's your prerogative. I feel you took my wording overly literally in a very narrow minded interpretation, but it is technically what I said, so you're allowed to split the hair if you feel like it.
Although in doing so, you clearly missed the point.
The point isn't that suppression or cover fire can't/doesn't have the ability to kill anyone. It's that it's often used to let a different group close in to a more effective distance undetected or in a less challenging manner. As, advancing head as a single team wouldn't be as effective.
Two teams split up or taking different approaches is better. One team holds/pins/suppresses/covers. Another team gets in place to neutralize or enter or whatever the objective happens to be.
I never once said in the US military that these are fixed and static teams where individual soldiers are only trained to do one thing. You fabricated that argument in your imagination. I understand that soldiers are trained in multiple roles because battles are dynamic. I also understand that's unnecessary tactical minutiae whicj serves no purpose here and only serves to muddy the waters and misses the point. Like sure, we could go into the all the details of how a US Tank Simulation works at Ft. Riley....by why?
Yes, in the US Army, any soldier could be part of either team in an engagement. That had nothing to do with what I said, nor the broader point of this discussion.
The point is, any engagement, regardless of who is on which team or element for an engagement, NEITHER team is there to single handedly carry the day all by itself. If it does, great I suppose. But the teams are there to support each other in different roles.
Which is how defensive holding infantry works in Total War. Yes, it gets kills. It's NOT designed to single handedly solve the situation by itself. It helps set up another element of the army to do its part.
Ironbreakers are designed to set up and hold. They do this better than any infantry unit in the game. Another element gets the kills.
Yes, there are all out Rambo, kill everything all by yourself infantry in this game. But it wasn't listed in this poll nor was it framed to be a part of this discussion. The discussion was clearly about defensive infantry.
The US Army was brought up as a real world tactical parallel of split support roles rather than "one group Rambo's everything" which seemed to be Darth's impression of 'holding the line'.
The point really isn't that complicated. I feel like you overly nitpicked a rather obvious point to the level where you 'couldn't see the forest through the trees'.
Well since this is Warhammer, and Warhammer does everything more like movies than like real life, that's what I'm going with.
Unless the OP wants to elaborate on the scenario.
If you require the OP to clarify that he was asking more about Total War than he was about a movie, then I don't know what else to tell you.
I figured analyzing this from a Total War setting was obvious. Maybe secondarily from a Warhammer setting context. But certainly not a 'random action movie' setting.
Different lenses of potential comparison exist based on context. This is clearly a Total War/Warhammer context rather than a Hollywood context.
Well in both game and TT, the phoenix guards probably has the best chance at staying alive. Specially in TT, the phoenix guard are the ones with the lowest armour save and toughess score, true, but the 4+ ward save does make them far more durable. Ironbreakers has a 3+ armour save and a 6+ parry save in melee, which is also really good.
But.
They both units without stubborn. In TT they can be pushed to route by being flanked, being outnumbered, being charged, etc. in the same turn, since combat resolution gives a lot more leverage to manevours than just killing power.
Temple Guards are the toughest of the lot and a decent armour save (5+ in melee and 4+ for missile due to shield), cold-blooded makes them difficult to route, and, when joined by a Slann mage-priest, they are stubborn and immune to psychology, thus can't be forced to route by being outnumbered.
In-game though the above isn't represented. I'd probably pick Phoenix Guards. Not to mention halberds are nice general-purpose weapons so I'm bias towards them.
I figured analyzing this from a Total War setting was obvious.
You didn't though. You made a bunch of calls to "realism" . Realism has nothing to do with TW.
I made multiple to calls to Total War. These units roles in Total War, defensive infantry roles in Total War, Hammer and Anvil roles in Total War, how non-defensive units from a Total War sense weren't included, further contextualizing the poll.....did you really miss ALL the Total War references in every post?
I literally made one appeal to realism involving the US military which only got expanded upon because someone else missed the point.
Over 90% of my points have been Total War based. I'm not sure how that eluded you.
And while Total War isn't hyper realistic, it does try to take loose inspiration from real strategies...such as Hammer and Anvil tactics.....in which the OP was listing only 'Anvil' infantry.
Total War has 'Hammer' infantry. And it has 'Hammer + Anvil Infantry'. Which the OP didn't include. It doesn't seem to be a discussion about those.
So yeah, the OP seems clearly framed towards comparing 'Anvil' infantry types. In which case, comparing their 'Anvil' qualities in ranking them seems relevant. I have no idea why this is that hard to understand.
Why are we assuming its just grunts with swords attacking this metaphorical line.
Who's making that assumption? If we're using TWW stats, though, Ironbreakers also have Charge Defence against All, and having higher armour, health, melee defence, missile resistance, and magic resistance is generally going to let them hold longer than Phoenix Guard. In TWW stats, assuming it's just grunts attacking with swords actually favours the Phoenix Guard, unless the swords are magic. Ironbreakers have extra protection against ranged attacks and one of the biggest mass murderers of line infantry: area damage spells.
First I never said they hadn't proven themselves, I said their experience varies but at the end of the day they are still a Dwarf. They are not like Gotrex Gurnison who's strength and skill have changed to being well above a normal Dwarf because of Grimnirs axe. They are highly skilled yes but they are not substantially beyond normal Dwarfs. Dwarfs and Elves reach a point where their skills diminish in their life span due to age. Saurus and Temple Guard never encounter this.
Sure, the typical dwarf isn't Gotrek, but the typical Temple Guard isn't Chakax either. Those Saurus that are substantially beyond normal Saurus start entering the realm of being characters, not Temple Guard.
When compared to Saurus in lore the other species are often very surprised on how resilient, ferocious, and relentless they are. There's plenty of stories where normal Saurus take far more damage and keep fighting that a human or anything else is use to seeing. After all Saurus were created to fight everything that was on the planet before these species. The old ones also had the forsigjt to see the future and designed them to fight any future threats as well. Remember Orks also existed when the Saurus were created.
Yes, Saurus are resilient, ferocious, and relentless. But they're also lacking in agility, resulting in low Weapon Skill and Initiative compared to Elves and Dwarfs - which in TWW translates into lower Melee Attack and, critically for the question being asked here, Melee Defence. They're tough (but on the same level as dwarfs), but being good at taking hits is counterbalanced by being much more likely to take those hits in the first place. And Ironbreaker armour and Phoenix Guard diving blessings makes the Ironbreaker and Phoenix Guard equal or better at taking the hit on top of being better at preventing the hit from landing in the first place. Temple Guard might hit harder afterwards, especially on tabletop where Weapon Skill didn't really matter as much as MA/MD in TWW, but we're not judging based on their ability to murder the enemy.
Things don't just transition into being a Scar Veteran by age and strength. They do so when a previous Scar Veteran passes. As Saurus do not die from old age this is generally only on the battlefield. That being stated, Temple Guard do not become Scar Veteran that is a Saurus rank not a Temple Guard. They have their own rank structure and again it's only achieved when the previous one holding the rank dies or gets up to the next rank as that one died.
Oh, please. This is like saying that a High Elf couldn't possibly be character-level unless they're a noble, and that every noble must be a hero level (that'd make Silver Helms substantially scarier than they are). Games Workshop switched into using flavourful names for characters rather than the generic "High Elf Hero" and "Saurus Hero", but it's still generally accepted that a Temple Guard character, for instance, would be represented by taking a Scar-Veteran (or Oldblood) statline, keeping them on foot, giving them appropriate equipment, and including them in a Temple Guard unit. The rank and file Temple Guard still have rank and file Temple Guard statistics, just like rank and file elites from other races still have the statistics of rank and file members of those units. Sure, there'd be some Temple Guard that stand head and shoulders above their comrades, metaphorically if not literally. But the same would be true of elite units of other races.
Most Temple Guard are very old when compared to your normal Saurus who is also very old when compared to your average Dwarf and Elf and especially Human. Most Lizardmen Characters, except Skinks, are over 8000 years old. Except for Gor rok who is unique being albino but even he is several Thosand years old.
Temple Guard replenish just like Saurus. Not as frequently, of course, but there were new Temple Guard spawnings right up to the (horrible) End Times. (If anything, from memory, there was said to be an up-tick in the spawnings of Temple Guard alongside other elite types like Chameleon Skinks and Cold One Riders as the End Times approached.)
Yes, there are Saurus characters that lived for thousands of years - but you need to check your survivor bias there. Most Saurus don't. Kroq-Gar is called the Last Defender of Xhotl for a reason. Those that survive long enough can become very impressive, but the spawnings are few enough and the attrition rate is high enough that after a few thousand years, there are usually only one or two (if any!) surviving from any given spawning (which are naturally very, very scary, both because of the benefits of thousands of years of extra growth and experience, and because it's likely to be one of the ones that was better to begin with that survive that long). They just don't get to form entire units of Saurus that have survived thousands of years of combat. If they did, that would be reflected in the statistics and we'd be having an entirely different discussion.
I think you misunderstand what 'holding the line' means. Usually something 'holds the line' so that SOMETHING ELSE will do the killing: magic, missiles, monsters, cavalry, characters, etc. Hammer and Anvil type stuff. One unit sets it up by holding it in place, another unit knocks it down.
Hmm, I always see it used as a "stand here and don't let anyone past you". Generally in a "don't let anyone through this gate", "don't let anyone down this tunnel". etc.
In media, it's almost always a "hold the line here while we evacuate the civilians", "hold the line here till I can deactivate the computer", type situations. I don't see the "hold the line while we pick them off at range" variation as often.
Standard US military training in 'assault fortified position' drills usually includes a 'line holding force' that isn't supposed to kill. Just fire enough that it gets their attention and makes them duck. So a different splinter group can actually break in while they're distracted. Like, the movies isn't actually how it's done.
But one's cinematic or real life context aside, the context of this thread is entirely different.
We're talking about Total War units in a Total War setting, where traditional Hammer and Anvil is used. NOT "you go and I'll hold em off at the tunnel" tactics.
And all the ACTUALLY good at "mowing them down at the tunnel" units weren't included in the poll.
I feel like the poll listing only defensive infantry in a Total War scenario kinda implies a 'Hammer and Anvil' definition of holding the line. Although certainly in other settings or scenarios, other types of 'holding the line' exists.
.........
As someone who has been an Infantryman with actual combat experience for 15 years in both the US Marine Corps and the US Army what you just said is such utter ****. There is not a single tactic in assaulting a fortified position where an element is not suppose to kill the enemy. There is not a single tactic where an element is just suppose to make the enemy duck.
What you are referring to is a support by fire position but you whole misrepresented what that does. It's job is not to hold the line. It's job is provide superior fire support on an enemy position through accurate fires and suppression to allow a manueveres element to close with and secure the position. They have the same opportunity to kill the enemy as the assaulting element. There is not a specific force that does this. Medium machine guns and above will always be used in support by fire positions but all infantrymen are trained to do be both support by fire and assault elements as these are fluid on a battlefield.
I can also point to a few films where the assaults are done fairly accurately. So I further have no understanding what point you are trying to make here.
If you want to nitpick about suppression fire killing people that's your prerogative. I feel you took my wording overly literally in a very narrow minded interpretation, but it is technically what I said, so you're allowed to split the hair if you feel like it.
Although in doing so, you clearly missed the point.
The point isn't that suppression or cover fire can't/doesn't have the ability to kill anyone. It's that it's often used to let a different group close in to a more effective distance undetected or in a less challenging manner. As, advancing head as a single team wouldn't be as effective.
Two teams split up or taking different approaches is better. One team holds/pins/suppresses/covers. Another team gets in place to neutralize or enter or whatever the objective happens to be.
I never once said in the US military that these are fixed and static teams where individual soldiers are only trained to do one thing. You fabricated that argument in your imagination. I understand that soldiers are trained in multiple roles because battles are dynamic. I also understand that's unnecessary tactical minutiae whicj serves no purpose here and only serves to muddy the waters and misses the point. Like sure, we could go into the all the details of how a US Tank Simulation works at Ft. Riley....by why?
Yes, in the US Army, any soldier could be part of either team in an engagement. That had nothing to do with what I said, nor the broader point of this discussion.
The point is, any engagement, regardless of who is on which team or element for an engagement, NEITHER team is there to single handedly carry the day all by itself. If it does, great I suppose. But the teams are there to support each other in different roles.
Which is how defensive holding infantry works in Total War. Yes, it gets kills. It's NOT designed to single handedly solve the situation by itself. It helps set up another element of the army to do its part.
Ironbreakers are designed to set up and hold. They do this better than any infantry unit in the game. Another element gets the kills.
Yes, there are all out Rambo, kill everything all by yourself infantry in this game. But it wasn't listed in this poll nor was it framed to be a part of this discussion. The discussion was clearly about defensive infantry.
The US Army was brought up as a real world tactical parallel of split support roles rather than "one group Rambo's everything" which seemed to be Darth's impression of 'holding the line'.
The point really isn't that complicated. I feel like you overly nitpicked a rather obvious point to the level where you 'couldn't see the forest through the trees'.
No you compared a support by fire position to holding a line, it is a support position not a defensive one. Your attempted use of this as a comparison falls flat on its face here. It's a completely different style of warfare that doesn't function on the same principles.
Further it is not nitpicking to say what I said. You solely misrepresented the purpose of the tactic you refered to to attempt to make it equate it to the action you wanted. It does not in any way equate to the same thing. Especially when you're talking about a fortified position. I could understand your point if you were talking an engagement between two different forces in the open when yes the support by fire position becomes the line to hold. But an assaulting action is not the same you are not holding a line you are conducting an assault and you woefully misrepresented what that was. By your wording alone.
An apt comparison would have been to talk about Macedoian pikemen who literally held the enemy at bay until calvary flanked the enemy. Or any other pikemen force in history would have been a good comparison as they were designed to hold a line, viking shield walls, hoplite phalanxs, or any other similar style of formation would also have been apt. But using modern support by fire positions to equate to holding a line in the manner in which you did is absolute rubbish.
Why are we assuming its just grunts with swords attacking this metaphorical line.
Who's making that assumption? If we're using TWW stats, though, Ironbreakers also have Charge Defence against All, and having higher armour, health, melee defence, missile resistance, and magic resistance is generally going to let them hold longer than Phoenix Guard. In TWW stats, assuming it's just grunts attacking with swords actually favours the Phoenix Guard, unless the swords are magic. Ironbreakers have extra protection against ranged attacks and one of the biggest mass murderers of line infantry: area damage spells.
First I never said they hadn't proven themselves, I said their experience varies but at the end of the day they are still a Dwarf. They are not like Gotrex Gurnison who's strength and skill have changed to being well above a normal Dwarf because of Grimnirs axe. They are highly skilled yes but they are not substantially beyond normal Dwarfs. Dwarfs and Elves reach a point where their skills diminish in their life span due to age. Saurus and Temple Guard never encounter this.
Sure, the typical dwarf isn't Gotrek, but the typical Temple Guard isn't Chakax either. Those Saurus that are substantially beyond normal Saurus start entering the realm of being characters, not Temple Guard.
When compared to Saurus in lore the other species are often very surprised on how resilient, ferocious, and relentless they are. There's plenty of stories where normal Saurus take far more damage and keep fighting that a human or anything else is use to seeing. After all Saurus were created to fight everything that was on the planet before these species. The old ones also had the forsigjt to see the future and designed them to fight any future threats as well. Remember Orks also existed when the Saurus were created.
Yes, Saurus are resilient, ferocious, and relentless. But they're also lacking in agility, resulting in low Weapon Skill and Initiative compared to Elves and Dwarfs - which in TWW translates into lower Melee Attack and, critically for the question being asked here, Melee Defence. They're tough (but on the same level as dwarfs), but being good at taking hits is counterbalanced by being much more likely to take those hits in the first place. And Ironbreaker armour and Phoenix Guard diving blessings makes the Ironbreaker and Phoenix Guard equal or better at taking the hit on top of being better at preventing the hit from landing in the first place. Temple Guard might hit harder afterwards, especially on tabletop where Weapon Skill didn't really matter as much as MA/MD in TWW, but we're not judging based on their ability to murder the enemy.
Things don't just transition into being a Scar Veteran by age and strength. They do so when a previous Scar Veteran passes. As Saurus do not die from old age this is generally only on the battlefield. That being stated, Temple Guard do not become Scar Veteran that is a Saurus rank not a Temple Guard. They have their own rank structure and again it's only achieved when the previous one holding the rank dies or gets up to the next rank as that one died.
Oh, please. This is like saying that a High Elf couldn't possibly be character-level unless they're a noble, and that every noble must be a hero level (that'd make Silver Helms substantially scarier than they are). Games Workshop switched into using flavourful names for characters rather than the generic "High Elf Hero" and "Saurus Hero", but it's still generally accepted that a Temple Guard character, for instance, would be represented by taking a Scar-Veteran (or Oldblood) statline, keeping them on foot, giving them appropriate equipment, and including them in a Temple Guard unit. The rank and file Temple Guard still have rank and file Temple Guard statistics, just like rank and file elites from other races still have the statistics of rank and file members of those units. Sure, there'd be some Temple Guard that stand head and shoulders above their comrades, metaphorically if not literally. But the same would be true of elite units of other races.
Most Temple Guard are very old when compared to your normal Saurus who is also very old when compared to your average Dwarf and Elf and especially Human. Most Lizardmen Characters, except Skinks, are over 8000 years old. Except for Gor rok who is unique being albino but even he is several Thosand years old.
Temple Guard replenish just like Saurus. Not as frequently, of course, but there were new Temple Guard spawnings right up to the (horrible) End Times. (If anything, from memory, there was said to be an up-tick in the spawnings of Temple Guard alongside other elite types like Chameleon Skinks and Cold One Riders as the End Times approached.)
Yes, there are Saurus characters that lived for thousands of years - but you need to check your survivor bias there. Most Saurus don't. Kroq-Gar is called the Last Defender of Xhotl for a reason. Those that survive long enough can become very impressive, but the spawnings are few enough and the attrition rate is high enough that after a few thousand years, there are usually only one or two (if any!) surviving from any given spawning (which are naturally very, very scary, both because of the benefits of thousands of years of extra growth and experience, and because it's likely to be one of the ones that was better to begin with that survive that long). They just don't get to form entire units of Saurus that have survived thousands of years of combat. If they did, that would be reflected in the statistics and we'd be having an entirely different discussion.
First and foremost I was asked about lorewise not TT and not Total War and Lore wise Temple Guard are what they are.
Second if you even bothered to read the previous responses I made I outright said that Ironbreakers alone in this game are far above the other in this conversation from their melee defence alone.
Third again nothing about my answers have anything to do with TT or Total War. There is only two ranks of Temple Guard and they are Revered Guardian and Eternity Warden. And Chakax does completely different things on the TT than a Sacr Veteran so don't even compare them.
4th unless you can say exactly how old the average Temple Guard is there's no point in even trying to argue here. Temple Guard enter the battlefield far less often than Saurus do. They immediately have a higher life expectancy thus they are already far older than your average Saurus. I'd even say most are older than Gor-Roc making them the age of Lizardmen Charcters in their own right. I wasn't saying everyone is the same as Chakax but if you bothered to understand what was being said is that they get tougher and stronger as they age and it happens indefinitely. Also Chakax is an Eternity Warden of one single Temple City. Every Temple City has an Eternity Warden. This automatically puts them ahead of Dwarfs and Elves whom hit a point age wise where they decline. Further I don't know why people keep saying experience with anything related to Saurus or Temple Guard. They instinctively know everything they will ever need day one. It is how they were designed. They do not get more cunning with time like other races they start out like that. Nice paying attention on what I actually said though.
Finally as I said earlier it would actually help you to understand where any of my points of Temple Guard came from in the first place. Read the conversation. I know it can be hard when multiple conversations are going off at once but you severally missed the mark on what the points were. Even to the extent of missing the point of an entire paragraph. Do not bring up Total War or TT when responding to my comments as my comments here have absolutely nothing to do with them in the first place.
I think you misunderstand what 'holding the line' means. Usually something 'holds the line' so that SOMETHING ELSE will do the killing: magic, missiles, monsters, cavalry, characters, etc. Hammer and Anvil type stuff. One unit sets it up by holding it in place, another unit knocks it down.
Hmm, I always see it used as a "stand here and don't let anyone past you". Generally in a "don't let anyone through this gate", "don't let anyone down this tunnel". etc.
In media, it's almost always a "hold the line here while we evacuate the civilians", "hold the line here till I can deactivate the computer", type situations. I don't see the "hold the line while we pick them off at range" variation as often.
Standard US military training in 'assault fortified position' drills usually includes a 'line holding force' that isn't supposed to kill. Just fire enough that it gets their attention and makes them duck. So a different splinter group can actually break in while they're distracted. Like, the movies isn't actually how it's done.
But one's cinematic or real life context aside, the context of this thread is entirely different.
We're talking about Total War units in a Total War setting, where traditional Hammer and Anvil is used. NOT "you go and I'll hold em off at the tunnel" tactics.
And all the ACTUALLY good at "mowing them down at the tunnel" units weren't included in the poll.
I feel like the poll listing only defensive infantry in a Total War scenario kinda implies a 'Hammer and Anvil' definition of holding the line. Although certainly in other settings or scenarios, other types of 'holding the line' exists.
.........
As someone who has been an Infantryman with actual combat experience for 15 years in both the US Marine Corps and the US Army what you just said is such utter ****. There is not a single tactic in assaulting a fortified position where an element is not suppose to kill the enemy. There is not a single tactic where an element is just suppose to make the enemy duck.
What you are referring to is a support by fire position but you whole misrepresented what that does. It's job is not to hold the line. It's job is provide superior fire support on an enemy position through accurate fires and suppression to allow a manueveres element to close with and secure the position. They have the same opportunity to kill the enemy as the assaulting element. There is not a specific force that does this. Medium machine guns and above will always be used in support by fire positions but all infantrymen are trained to do be both support by fire and assault elements as these are fluid on a battlefield.
I can also point to a few films where the assaults are done fairly accurately. So I further have no understanding what point you are trying to make here.
If you want to nitpick about suppression fire killing people that's your prerogative. I feel you took my wording overly literally in a very narrow minded interpretation, but it is technically what I said, so you're allowed to split the hair if you feel like it.
Although in doing so, you clearly missed the point.
The point isn't that suppression or cover fire can't/doesn't have the ability to kill anyone. It's that it's often used to let a different group close in to a more effective distance undetected or in a less challenging manner. As, advancing head as a single team wouldn't be as effective.
Two teams split up or taking different approaches is better. One team holds/pins/suppresses/covers. Another team gets in place to neutralize or enter or whatever the objective happens to be.
I never once said in the US military that these are fixed and static teams where individual soldiers are only trained to do one thing. You fabricated that argument in your imagination. I understand that soldiers are trained in multiple roles because battles are dynamic. I also understand that's unnecessary tactical minutiae whicj serves no purpose here and only serves to muddy the waters and misses the point. Like sure, we could go into the all the details of how a US Tank Simulation works at Ft. Riley....by why?
Yes, in the US Army, any soldier could be part of either team in an engagement. That had nothing to do with what I said, nor the broader point of this discussion.
The point is, any engagement, regardless of who is on which team or element for an engagement, NEITHER team is there to single handedly carry the day all by itself. If it does, great I suppose. But the teams are there to support each other in different roles.
Which is how defensive holding infantry works in Total War. Yes, it gets kills. It's NOT designed to single handedly solve the situation by itself. It helps set up another element of the army to do its part.
Ironbreakers are designed to set up and hold. They do this better than any infantry unit in the game. Another element gets the kills.
Yes, there are all out Rambo, kill everything all by yourself infantry in this game. But it wasn't listed in this poll nor was it framed to be a part of this discussion. The discussion was clearly about defensive infantry.
The US Army was brought up as a real world tactical parallel of split support roles rather than "one group Rambo's everything" which seemed to be Darth's impression of 'holding the line'.
The point really isn't that complicated. I feel like you overly nitpicked a rather obvious point to the level where you 'couldn't see the forest through the trees'.
No you compared a support by fire position to holding a line, it is a support position not a defensive one. Your attempted use of this as a comparison falls flat on its face here. It's a completely different style of warfare that doesn't function on the same principles.
Further it is not nitpicking to say what I said. You solely misrepresented the purpose of the tactic you refered to to attempt to make it equate it to the action you wanted. It does not in any way equate to the same thing. Especially when you're talking about a fortified position. I could understand your point if you were talking an engagement between two different forces in the open when yes the support by fire position becomes the line to hold. But an assaulting action is not the same you are not holding a line you are conducting an assault and you woefully misrepresented what that was. By your wording alone.
An apt comparison would have been to talk about Macedoian pikemen who literally held the enemy at bay until calvary flanked the enemy. Or any other pikemen force in history would have been a good comparison as they were designed to hold a line, viking shield walls, hoplite phalanxs, or any other similar style of formation would also have been apt. But using modern support by fire positions to equate to holding a line in the manner in which you did is absolute rubbish.
You are absolutely nit picking. Nit picking about the details of how the squadrons are trained, nit picking about the specific terrain in which this hypothetical scenario is taking place, etc. etc.
If you don't see it that way, we'll probably not agree. But yes, the broader point just blew past you because you wanted to get hyper technical with your wording of suppression fire while the general point I was making was still true and apparent. I apparently didn't use the Navy Seal Dictionary in a way that appealed to you when making the point though so you went off. That's textbook bureaucratic nit picking.
I also made those points about historical Hammer and Anvil formations btw. You must have missed that.
The ONLY reason the US point got involved was somebody else mentioning action movie type scenarios.
^So I mentioned that in those 'action movie scenarios', the real life version is closer to to line holding than they might realize. Which is just true.
You apparently missed that that as well.
The US example wasn't brought up randomly out of the blue. It was brought up as an alternative vision to a more modern scenario that somebody else had already described as their primary context of analyzing the thread.
So I said BOTH that the modern lens wasn't the most appropriate. But even conceding the modern lens interpretation for a moment, you can still see these holding principles at play in more realistic vs cinematic scenarios....a point which you conceded in the very above post!
If the more modern action scenario wouldn't have been brought up in the first place, the US has a counter point wouldn't have been either. You're asking like it just fell out the sky. And more historical Hammer and Anvils being more appropriate to the topic was already mentioned in addition to everything else.
And yet again you missed what someone stated and misused it. Which further defeats your entire rant and involvement of what you went down.
The quote you're refrencing: "In media, it's almost always a "hold the line here while we evacuate the civilians", "hold the line here till I can deactivate the computer", type situations. I don't see the "hold the line while we pick them off at range" variation as often."
In this quote he said the idea of hold the line while we pick off the enemy is not used in media. Holding the line in this way is not used in the real world. As this entire conversation of this topic is on Infantry in the first place,which you clearly dont understand, your use of and understsnding of Tanks and Tank Warfare has absolutely no bearing on this conversation in the first place. Further, you put a scenario foward which involves a support by fire position and a flanking element to advance which isn't remotely close to what the person was saying in the first place. An assault is not in any remote need of holding the line in the manner that is referenced above, which is entirely required in the defense. Tell me do you even understand the distances that most infantry combat today even takes place within? It is not long range.
In the end how you described the act was wrong, how you used it was wrong, and how you continue to try to defend the position is plain sad. You misused it. Accept it and move on.
And yet again you missed what someone stated and misused it. Which further defeats your entire rant and involvement of what you went down.
The quote you're refrencing: "In media, it's almost always a "hold the line here while we evacuate the civilians", "hold the line here till I can deactivate the computer", type situations. I don't see the "hold the line while we pick them off at range" variation as often."
In this quote he said the idea of hold the line while we pick off the enemy is not used in media. Holding the line in this way is not used in the real world. As this entire conversation of this topic is on Infantry in the first place,which you clearly dont understand, your use of and understsnding of Tanks and Tank Warfare has absolutely no bearing on this conversation in the first place. Further, you put a scenario foward which involves a support by fire position and a flanking element to advance which isn't remotely close to what the person was saying in the first place. An assault is not in any remote need of holding the line in the manner that is referenced above, which is entirely required in the defense. Tell me do you even understand the distances that most infantry combat today even takes place within? It is not long range.
In the end how you described the act was wrong, how you used it was wrong, and how you continue to try to defend the position is plain sad. You misused it. Accept it and move on.
Dude, I'm not mentioning tanks. I said tanks were irrelevant earlier. I've been mentioning infantry this whole time.
And the fact that the type of 'hold line in movies wasn't what happens in real life' was the whole point!! That's why I brought it up. We even talked about that between ourselves just a couple posts later. You yourself have already described modern situations where what I said happens, happens.
You're now literally restating my argument as your own. You're agreeing with me and then saying I don't know what I'm talking about.
I think you just woefully misunderstand both my argument and the overall flow of this thread. By a wide margin. You're mischaracterizing my points, almost being deliberately nitpicky and obtuse, and utterly failing to understand the context of my replies and why things were cited to begin with in response to previous statements.
You're just plain wrong and getting hung up on weird things for weird reasons that I don't understand then bringing up imaginary side tracks that I never referenced, like tanks or soldiers in modern units being flexibly trained.
You've invented an artificial argument in your head of my actual point then lambasting it when it was never my point to begin with, like a delusional strawman.
But I have no idea how to bring you back into alignment. So I don't know what else to say to you.
And we have devolved onto an internet badass thread
Oh yeah? Well I'm a General of the Navy and an Admiral of the Air Force, and *I* say when the US Military wants to hold the line, they land a boat in front of the doorway!
"Assassination's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it."
Warhammer runs on fantasy logic, because it's a fantasy setting. Using real life military tactics isn't going to give us a deeper understanding of the setting or the lore. 40% of Ironbreakers' effectiveness is being encased in a metal that doesn't exist, with the other 60% being based around them being members of a race that doesn't exist. Phoenix Guard are impervious to almost everything because a literal god says so, and Temple Guard are literal lizard people. I don't see how this conversation moves the topic forward in any meaningful way.
Warhammer runs on fantasy logic, because it's a fantasy setting. Using real life military tactics isn't going to give us a deeper understanding of the setting or the lore. 40% of Ironbreakers' effectiveness is being encased in a metal that doesn't exist, with the other 60% being based around them being members of a race that doesn't exist. Phoenix Guard are impervious to almost everything because a literal god says so, and Temple Guard are literal lizard people. I don't see how this conversation moves the topic forward in any meaningful way.
Than forget lore forget what tt said since its dead and know one knows the new upcoming rules.
Lets look IE and rank how long will they hold in isolation against any enemy.
Than ironbreakers still come out in top there are niche cases phoenix guard or temple gurad or dragon guard may out performe
On the single aspect just not dyinv for x amount of time ironbreakres win on average
Warhammer runs on fantasy logic, because it's a fantasy setting. Using real life military tactics isn't going to give us a deeper understanding of the setting or the lore. 40% of Ironbreakers' effectiveness is being encased in a metal that doesn't exist, with the other 60% being based around them being members of a race that doesn't exist. Phoenix Guard are impervious to almost everything because a literal god says so, and Temple Guard are literal lizard people. I don't see how this conversation moves the topic forward in any meaningful way.
Than forget lore forget what tt said since its dead and know one knows the new upcoming rules.
Lets look IE and rank how long will they hold in isolation against any enemy.
Than ironbreakers still come out in top there are niche cases phoenix guard or temple gurad or dragon guard may out performe
On the single aspect just not dyinv for x amount of time ironbreakres win on average
Just as the poll clearly shows
However the poll isn't about who would be more effective or who wins on average. It is about who you would choose to hold the line... some people may choo choo choose someone less effective and it could be for any number of reasons... sight of their behind, their dainty scent...
Meta-gaming this the choice is obviously Ironbreakers, but personal preference is Temple Guards. I'm mostly just bitter that their TW iteration is weaker than both their TT and fluff iterations. Especially when it comes to their weapon strength being lower than standard club wielding Saurus Warriors. That's just not right.
Meta-gaming this the choice is obviously Ironbreakers, but personal preference is Temple Guards. I'm mostly just bitter that their TW iteration is weaker than both their TT and fluff iterations. Especially when it comes to their weapon strength being lower than standard club wielding Saurus Warriors. That's just not right.
they are not weaker than saurs are we serious for second . they have majority AP , best animations of any helberd unit and much higher HP so they could survive lot longer than other elite helberd units against their natural counter not to mention BvL
they are the strongest heberd unit when it comes to offense .
Meta-gaming this the choice is obviously Ironbreakers, but personal preference is Temple Guards. I'm mostly just bitter that their TW iteration is weaker than both their TT and fluff iterations. Especially when it comes to their weapon strength being lower than standard club wielding Saurus Warriors. That's just not right.
they are the strongest heberd unit when it comes to offense .
Yes, Temple Guard is anyway better than Saurus. But how can they be the best offensive helberd? You mean including Chosen Helberd?
Meta-gaming this the choice is obviously Ironbreakers, but personal preference is Temple Guards. I'm mostly just bitter that their TW iteration is weaker than both their TT and fluff iterations. Especially when it comes to their weapon strength being lower than standard club wielding Saurus Warriors. That's just not right.
they are the strongest heberd unit when it comes to offense .
Yes, Temple Guard is anyway better than Saurus. But how can they be the best helberd? You mean including Chosen Helberd?
Not really chosen have better stats sure but stats don't account for how good the animations are with the right plays they can absolutely eat a unit of chosen helberds obliviously this all is considering how good the plays are so yes i would rate them higher than chosen just because they are not bad in to elite infantry even things that's supposed to counter them.
a trait not any other elite helberd unit can claim
Meta-gaming this the choice is obviously Ironbreakers, but personal preference is Temple Guards. I'm mostly just bitter that their TW iteration is weaker than both their TT and fluff iterations. Especially when it comes to their weapon strength being lower than standard club wielding Saurus Warriors. That's just not right.
they are the strongest heberd unit when it comes to offense .
Yes, Temple Guard is anyway better than Saurus. But how can they be the best helberd? You mean including Chosen Helberd?
Not really chosen have better stats sure but stats don't account for how good the animations are with the right plays they can absolutely eat a unit of chosen helberds obliviously this all is considering how good the plays are so yes i would rate them higher than chosen just because they are not bad in to elite infantry even things that's supposed to counter them.
a trait not any other elite helberd unit can claim
Nope. I can find tons of test videos showing Chosen (Helberd) easily defeats Temple Guard with around 3/4 life points remaining. If you are interested, please check this.
Meta-gaming this the choice is obviously Ironbreakers, but personal preference is Temple Guards. I'm mostly just bitter that their TW iteration is weaker than both their TT and fluff iterations. Especially when it comes to their weapon strength being lower than standard club wielding Saurus Warriors. That's just not right.
they are the strongest heberd unit when it comes to offense .
Yes, Temple Guard is anyway better than Saurus. But how can they be the best helberd? You mean including Chosen Helberd?
Not really chosen have better stats sure but stats don't account for how good the animations are with the right plays they can absolutely eat a unit of chosen helberds obliviously this all is considering how good the plays are so yes i would rate them higher than chosen just because they are not bad in to elite infantry even things that's supposed to counter them.
a trait not any other elite helberd unit can claim
Nope. I can find tons of test videos showing Chosen (Helberd) easily defeats Temple Guard with around 3/4 life points remaining. If you are interested, please check this.
I never said they don't beat them , i said with right plays chosen helberds base line should beat because one is over 1400 points temple guard is 1200
but reality is chosen get capped on the number of attacks they make due to their animations but temple guard has much higher cap
so if i were to cover their real weakness which MA and MD they out perform chosen using spells doing the same to chosen doesn't have the same effect
Meta-gaming this the choice is obviously Ironbreakers, but personal preference is Temple Guards. I'm mostly just bitter that their TW iteration is weaker than both their TT and fluff iterations. Especially when it comes to their weapon strength being lower than standard club wielding Saurus Warriors. That's just not right.
they are not weaker than saurs are we serious for second . they have majority AP , best animations of any helberd unit and much higher HP so they could survive lot longer than other elite helberd units against their natural counter not to mention BvL
they are the strongest heberd unit when it comes to offense .
I didn't say they were weaker than Saurus Warriors, I said that they had less WS than them and were weaker than their TT stats and fluff would indicate. It's absolutely true that they have a much better AP damage as well as other advantages in other stats, so put both against something like Dwarf Warriors and the TG will perform better than the simple SW will. However, put them both against low to no armor infantry targets and the TG will take longer to kill the enemy then the SW will do to the less overall weapon strength. Against something super trashy like Zombies it's not much of a difference but against tougher infantry such as Plague Monks, Daemonettes or even Nurglings and that difference in damage output and banishing or routing the enemy can wind up to a 30 second difference. That's completely asinine and it applies not only to SW and TG, but in other scenarios across the rosters as well. The problem is that anti-large units in general have their base damage artificially nerfed to account for the bonus against large targets, which ends up hampering their ability to deal with other infantry in a way that's in no way reflective of the TT, the lore or any real-life historical warfare that inspired it all.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that TG are suppossed to be better than regular Saurus Warriors in every way other than cost/upkeep, but do to the way anti-large works in game they're ironically weaker when fighting lightly equipped enemies despite their giant polearms because of the smaller amount of raw damage they dish out.
Meta-gaming this the choice is obviously Ironbreakers, but personal preference is Temple Guards. I'm mostly just bitter that their TW iteration is weaker than both their TT and fluff iterations. Especially when it comes to their weapon strength being lower than standard club wielding Saurus Warriors. That's just not right.
they are not weaker than saurs are we serious for second . they have majority AP , best animations of any helberd unit and much higher HP so they could survive lot longer than other elite helberd units against their natural counter not to mention BvL
they are the strongest heberd unit when it comes to offense .
I didn't say they were weaker than Saurus Warriors, I said that they had less WS than them and were weaker than their TT stats and fluff would indicate. It's absolutely true that they have a much better AP damage as well as other advantages in other stats, so put both against something like Dwarf Warriors and the TG will perform better than the simple SW will. However, put them both against low to no armor infantry targets and the TG will take longer to kill the enemy then the SW will do to the less overall weapon strength. Against something super trashy like Zombies it's not much of a difference but against tougher infantry such as Plague Monks, Daemonettes or even Nurglings and that difference in damage output and banishing or routing the enemy can wind up to a 30 second difference. That's completely asinine and it applies not only to SW and TG, but in other scenarios across the rosters as well. The problem is that anti-large units in general have their base damage artificially nerfed to account for the bonus against large targets, which ends up hampering their ability to deal with other infantry in a way that's in no way reflective of the TT, the lore or any real-life historical warfare that inspired it all.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that TG are suppossed to be better than regular Saurus Warriors in every way other than cost/upkeep, but do to the way anti-large works in game they're ironically weaker when fighting lightly equipped enemies despite their giant polearms because of the smaller amount of raw damage they dish out.
i mean if we wanna do fluff or TT balance than there is no need to play TT
if temple guard or any helberd unit suddenly became all rounder's than the combat niche of other units gets away.
in the end of the day these are two related but separate games
and for the record if we want historical accuracy pole arms generally were hell of lot better in most cases over other melee weapons that is irrelevant if you want different units performing different roles
Comments
But one's cinematic or real life context aside, the context of this thread is entirely different.
We're talking about Total War units in a Total War setting, where traditional Hammer and Anvil is used. NOT "you go and I'll hold em off at the tunnel" tactics.
And all the ACTUALLY good at "mowing them down at the tunnel" units weren't included in the poll.
I feel like the poll listing only defensive infantry in a Total War scenario kinda implies a 'Hammer and Anvil' definition of holding the line. Although certainly in other settings or scenarios, other types of 'holding the line' exists.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeUnless the OP wants to elaborate on the scenario.
- Report
0 · 2Disagree AgreeAs someone who has been an Infantryman with actual combat experience for 15 years in both the US Marine Corps and the US Army what you just said is such utter ****. There is not a single tactic in assaulting a fortified position where an element is not suppose to kill the enemy. There is not a single tactic where an element is just suppose to make the enemy duck.
What you are referring to is a support by fire position but you whole misrepresented what that does. It's job is not to hold the line. It's job is provide superior fire support on an enemy position through accurate fires and suppression to allow a manueveres element to close with and secure the position. They have the same opportunity to kill the enemy as the assaulting element. There is not a specific force that does this. Medium machine guns and above will always be used in support by fire positions but all infantrymen are trained to do be both support by fire and assault elements as these are fluid on a battlefield.
I can also point to a few films where the assaults are done fairly accurately. So I further have no understanding what point you are trying to make here.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeAlthough in doing so, you clearly missed the point.
The point isn't that suppression or cover fire can't/doesn't have the ability to kill anyone. It's that it's often used to let a different group close in to a more effective distance undetected or in a less challenging manner. As, advancing head as a single team wouldn't be as effective.
Two teams split up or taking different approaches is better. One team holds/pins/suppresses/covers. Another team gets in place to neutralize or enter or whatever the objective happens to be.
I never once said in the US military that these are fixed and static teams where individual soldiers are only trained to do one thing. You fabricated that argument in your imagination. I understand that soldiers are trained in multiple roles because battles are dynamic. I also understand that's unnecessary tactical minutiae whicj serves no purpose here and only serves to muddy the waters and misses the point. Like sure, we could go into the all the details of how a US Tank Simulation works at Ft. Riley....by why?
Yes, in the US Army, any soldier could be part of either team in an engagement. That had nothing to do with what I said, nor the broader point of this discussion.
The point is, any engagement, regardless of who is on which team or element for an engagement, NEITHER team is there to single handedly carry the day all by itself. If it does, great I suppose. But the teams are there to support each other in different roles.
Which is how defensive holding infantry works in Total War. Yes, it gets kills. It's NOT designed to single handedly solve the situation by itself. It helps set up another element of the army to do its part.
Ironbreakers are designed to set up and hold. They do this better than any infantry unit in the game. Another element gets the kills.
Yes, there are all out Rambo, kill everything all by yourself infantry in this game. But it wasn't listed in this poll nor was it framed to be a part of this discussion. The discussion was clearly about defensive infantry.
The US Army was brought up as a real world tactical parallel of split support roles rather than "one group Rambo's everything" which seemed to be Darth's impression of 'holding the line'.
The point really isn't that complicated. I feel like you overly nitpicked a rather obvious point to the level where you 'couldn't see the forest through the trees'.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeI figured analyzing this from a Total War setting was obvious. Maybe secondarily from a Warhammer setting context. But certainly not a 'random action movie' setting.
Different lenses of potential comparison exist based on context. This is clearly a Total War/Warhammer context rather than a Hollywood context.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree AgreeBut.
They both units without stubborn. In TT they can be pushed to route by being flanked, being outnumbered, being charged, etc. in the same turn, since combat resolution gives a lot more leverage to manevours than just killing power.
Temple Guards are the toughest of the lot and a decent armour save (5+ in melee and 4+ for missile due to shield), cold-blooded makes them difficult to route, and, when joined by a Slann mage-priest, they are stubborn and immune to psychology, thus can't be forced to route by being outnumbered.
In-game though the above isn't represented. I'd probably pick Phoenix Guards. Not to mention halberds are nice general-purpose weapons so I'm bias towards them.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeI literally made one appeal to realism involving the US military which only got expanded upon because someone else missed the point.
Over 90% of my points have been Total War based. I'm not sure how that eluded you.
And while Total War isn't hyper realistic, it does try to take loose inspiration from real strategies...such as Hammer and Anvil tactics.....in which the OP was listing only 'Anvil' infantry.
Total War has 'Hammer' infantry. And it has 'Hammer + Anvil Infantry'. Which the OP didn't include. It doesn't seem to be a discussion about those.
So yeah, the OP seems clearly framed towards comparing 'Anvil' infantry types. In which case, comparing their 'Anvil' qualities in ranking them seems relevant. I have no idea why this is that hard to understand.
- Report
1 · Disagree 1Agree- Report
6 · Disagree 6Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeIf we're using TWW stats, though, Ironbreakers also have Charge Defence against All, and having higher armour, health, melee defence, missile resistance, and magic resistance is generally going to let them hold longer than Phoenix Guard. In TWW stats, assuming it's just grunts attacking with swords actually favours the Phoenix Guard, unless the swords are magic. Ironbreakers have extra protection against ranged attacks and one of the biggest mass murderers of line infantry: area damage spells.
Sure, the typical dwarf isn't Gotrek, but the typical Temple Guard isn't Chakax either. Those Saurus that are substantially beyond normal Saurus start entering the realm of being characters, not Temple Guard. Yes, Saurus are resilient, ferocious, and relentless. But they're also lacking in agility, resulting in low Weapon Skill and Initiative compared to Elves and Dwarfs - which in TWW translates into lower Melee Attack and, critically for the question being asked here, Melee Defence. They're tough (but on the same level as dwarfs), but being good at taking hits is counterbalanced by being much more likely to take those hits in the first place. And Ironbreaker armour and Phoenix Guard diving blessings makes the Ironbreaker and Phoenix Guard equal or better at taking the hit on top of being better at preventing the hit from landing in the first place. Temple Guard might hit harder afterwards, especially on tabletop where Weapon Skill didn't really matter as much as MA/MD in TWW, but we're not judging based on their ability to murder the enemy. Oh, please. This is like saying that a High Elf couldn't possibly be character-level unless they're a noble, and that every noble must be a hero level (that'd make Silver Helms substantially scarier than they are). Games Workshop switched into using flavourful names for characters rather than the generic "High Elf Hero" and "Saurus Hero", but it's still generally accepted that a Temple Guard character, for instance, would be represented by taking a Scar-Veteran (or Oldblood) statline, keeping them on foot, giving them appropriate equipment, and including them in a Temple Guard unit. The rank and file Temple Guard still have rank and file Temple Guard statistics, just like rank and file elites from other races still have the statistics of rank and file members of those units. Sure, there'd be some Temple Guard that stand head and shoulders above their comrades, metaphorically if not literally. But the same would be true of elite units of other races. Temple Guard replenish just like Saurus. Not as frequently, of course, but there were new Temple Guard spawnings right up to the (horrible) End Times. (If anything, from memory, there was said to be an up-tick in the spawnings of Temple Guard alongside other elite types like Chameleon Skinks and Cold One Riders as the End Times approached.)
Yes, there are Saurus characters that lived for thousands of years - but you need to check your survivor bias there. Most Saurus don't. Kroq-Gar is called the Last Defender of Xhotl for a reason. Those that survive long enough can become very impressive, but the spawnings are few enough and the attrition rate is high enough that after a few thousand years, there are usually only one or two (if any!) surviving from any given spawning (which are naturally very, very scary, both because of the benefits of thousands of years of extra growth and experience, and because it's likely to be one of the ones that was better to begin with that survive that long). They just don't get to form entire units of Saurus that have survived thousands of years of combat. If they did, that would be reflected in the statistics and we'd be having an entirely different discussion.
- Report
2 · 1Disagree 2AgreeFurther it is not nitpicking to say what I said. You solely misrepresented the purpose of the tactic you refered to to attempt to make it equate it to the action you wanted. It does not in any way equate to the same thing. Especially when you're talking about a fortified position. I could understand your point if you were talking an engagement between two different forces in the open when yes the support by fire position becomes the line to hold. But an assaulting action is not the same you are not holding a line you are conducting an assault and you woefully misrepresented what that was. By your wording alone.
An apt comparison would have been to talk about Macedoian pikemen who literally held the enemy at bay until calvary flanked the enemy. Or any other pikemen force in history would have been a good comparison as they were designed to hold a line, viking shield walls, hoplite phalanxs, or any other similar style of formation would also have been apt. But using modern support by fire positions to equate to holding a line in the manner in which you did is absolute rubbish.
- Report
1 · 1Disagree 1AgreeSecond if you even bothered to read the previous responses I made I outright said that Ironbreakers alone in this game are far above the other in this conversation from their melee defence alone.
Third again nothing about my answers have anything to do with TT or Total War. There is only two ranks of Temple Guard and they are Revered Guardian and Eternity Warden. And Chakax does completely different things on the TT than a Sacr Veteran so don't even compare them.
4th unless you can say exactly how old the average Temple Guard is there's no point in even trying to argue here. Temple Guard enter the battlefield far less often than Saurus do. They immediately have a higher life expectancy thus they are already far older than your average Saurus. I'd even say most are older than Gor-Roc making them the age of Lizardmen Charcters in their own right. I wasn't saying everyone is the same as Chakax but if you bothered to understand what was being said is that they get tougher and stronger as they age and it happens indefinitely. Also Chakax is an Eternity Warden of one single Temple City. Every Temple City has an Eternity Warden. This automatically puts them ahead of Dwarfs and Elves whom hit a point age wise where they decline. Further I don't know why people keep saying experience with anything related to Saurus or Temple Guard. They instinctively know everything they will ever need day one. It is how they were designed. They do not get more cunning with time like other races they start out like that. Nice paying attention on what I actually said though.
Finally as I said earlier it would actually help you to understand where any of my points of Temple Guard came from in the first place. Read the conversation. I know it can be hard when multiple conversations are going off at once but you severally missed the mark on what the points were. Even to the extent of missing the point of an entire paragraph. Do not bring up Total War or TT when responding to my comments as my comments here have absolutely nothing to do with them in the first place.
- Report
0 · 2Disagree AgreeIf you don't see it that way, we'll probably not agree. But yes, the broader point just blew past you because you wanted to get hyper technical with your wording of suppression fire while the general point I was making was still true and apparent. I apparently didn't use the Navy Seal Dictionary in a way that appealed to you when making the point though so you went off. That's textbook bureaucratic nit picking.
I also made those points about historical Hammer and Anvil formations btw. You must have missed that.
The ONLY reason the US point got involved was somebody else mentioning action movie type scenarios.
^So I mentioned that in those 'action movie scenarios', the real life version is closer to to line holding than they might realize. Which is just true.
You apparently missed that that as well.
The US example wasn't brought up randomly out of the blue. It was brought up as an alternative vision to a more modern scenario that somebody else had already described as their primary context of analyzing the thread.
So I said BOTH that the modern lens wasn't the most appropriate. But even conceding the modern lens interpretation for a moment, you can still see these holding principles at play in more realistic vs cinematic scenarios....a point which you conceded in the very above post!
If the more modern action scenario wouldn't have been brought up in the first place, the US has a counter point wouldn't have been either. You're asking like it just fell out the sky. And more historical Hammer and Anvils being more appropriate to the topic was already mentioned in addition to everything else.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree AgreeThe quote you're refrencing:
"In media, it's almost always a "hold the line here while we evacuate the civilians", "hold the line here till I can deactivate the computer", type situations. I don't see the "hold the line while we pick them off at range" variation as often."
In this quote he said the idea of hold the line while we pick off the enemy is not used in media. Holding the line in this way is not used in the real world. As this entire conversation of this topic is on Infantry in the first place,which you clearly dont understand, your use of and understsnding of Tanks and Tank Warfare has absolutely no bearing on this conversation in the first place. Further, you put a scenario foward which involves a support by fire position and a flanking element to advance which isn't remotely close to what the person was saying in the first place. An assault is not in any remote need of holding the line in the manner that is referenced above, which is entirely required in the defense. Tell me do you even understand the distances that most infantry combat today even takes place within? It is not long range.
In the end how you described the act was wrong, how you used it was wrong, and how you continue to try to defend the position is plain sad. You misused it. Accept it and move on.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree AgreeAnd the fact that the type of 'hold line in movies wasn't what happens in real life' was the whole point!! That's why I brought it up. We even talked about that between ourselves just a couple posts later. You yourself have already described modern situations where what I said happens, happens.
You're now literally restating my argument as your own. You're agreeing with me and then saying I don't know what I'm talking about.
I think you just woefully misunderstand both my argument and the overall flow of this thread. By a wide margin. You're mischaracterizing my points, almost being deliberately nitpicky and obtuse, and utterly failing to understand the context of my replies and why things were cited to begin with in response to previous statements.
You're just plain wrong and getting hung up on weird things for weird reasons that I don't understand then bringing up imaginary side tracks that I never referenced, like tanks or soldiers in modern units being flexibly trained.
You've invented an artificial argument in your head of my actual point then lambasting it when it was never my point to begin with, like a delusional strawman.
But I have no idea how to bring you back into alignment. So I don't know what else to say to you.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree Agree- Report
0 · 1Disagree Agree- Report
1 · Disagree 1Agree- Report
3 · Disagree 3AgreeLets look IE and rank how long will they hold in isolation against any enemy.
Than ironbreakers still come out in top there are niche cases phoenix guard or temple gurad or dragon guard may out performe
On the single aspect just not dyinv for x amount of time ironbreakres win on average
#givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeHowever the poll isn't about who would be more effective or who wins on average. It is about who you would choose to hold the line... some people may choo choo choose someone less effective and it could be for any number of reasons... sight of their behind, their dainty scent...
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
1 · Disagree 1Agreenot to mention BvL
they are the strongest heberd unit when it comes to offense .
#givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agreeobliviously this all is considering how good the plays are so yes i would rate them higher than chosen just because they are not bad in to elite infantry even things that's supposed to counter them.
a trait not any other elite helberd unit can claim
#givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
- Report
0 · 1Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agreebut reality is chosen get capped on the number of attacks they make due to their animations but temple guard has much higher cap
so if i were to cover their real weakness which MA and MD they out perform chosen using spells doing the same to chosen doesn't have the same effect
#givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeBasically what I'm trying to say is that TG are suppossed to be better than regular Saurus Warriors in every way other than cost/upkeep, but do to the way anti-large works in game they're ironically weaker when fighting lightly equipped enemies despite their giant polearms because of the smaller amount of raw damage they dish out.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agreeif temple guard or any helberd unit suddenly became all rounder's than the combat niche of other units gets away.
in the end of the day these are two related but separate games
and for the record if we want historical accuracy pole arms generally were hell of lot better in most cases over other melee weapons that is irrelevant if you want different units performing different roles
#givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
- Report
0 · 1Disagree Agree