Monday, August 24, 2009

The attack bike question, continued . . .

I received such excellent analysis and advice from the previous comments on this topic, that I have decided to post some more thoughts.

brent said...
"Bikes look gay except for the Ork Attack Track thing. Get rid of them purely for the asthetics."

SynnerG said...
"haha, while I wouldn't say "gay", I'm also against bikes based on aesthetics. Never made sense to me to fight on "bike-back". Not when there's so many ranged dangers out there and especially when the rules state they never get off the bikes. If they were used as fast transport to get to a enemy and then dismount to charge, sure, but to get into CC on a 4 ton, 2 wheeled machine... seems a bit clumsy.

But I digress. After 5 games, if there's no improvement, what will you switch to for your anti-armor? I'm thinking of fielding MM Land Speeders, the number of them would depend on points, but probably 2-3 in individual squads, so as not to get owned by "squadron" rules."

Pacific said...
"Brent, good of you to take a break from Flight of the Concordes to make a post here ;)

I love bikes in RL and so am disposed towards them, but there are a couple of problems with the SM versions: There is no way you could pilot a bike skillfully at speed while firing a rifle (2 handed) weapon from one hand, unless of course you are the terminator on his harley :) I've modelled the weapon on my jetbikes as attached to the frame, which I think although more realistic would still be most likely unsuitable. Also, the tyre (specifically the front one) is so thick that the bike would be impossible to turn. Look at any military motorbike in history (BMW/armstrong etc.)and they have a high seated position and short wheelbase for more balance and manouverability. The marine version would need at least an 18-point turn in the road :)

Anyway! This is not the place to discuss these things :) It sounds FM Goering like you are having similar problems with your attack bikes as I am with my landspeeder, in that it just seems to lack impact in a game. Although admitedly my speeder has yet to have a penchant for driving into trees I admit :)

Perhaps it might be an idea to go all out, and go for yet another attack bike, or else put one in a unit with some melta-armed bikes? That might overcome the vagaries of bad luck in any case, and would be a good counter to mechanized forces."

High Marshal Hunter said...
"Im not a fan of the bikes. I think Id rather invest in some landspeeders for a quick objective grab than bikes which can just buy it so easily"

Pacific has really diagnosed the problem for me. The lack of impact is what is bothering me. The attack bike is not all together aesthetically unsatisfying. I just wish they would do something . . . have breakout game.

I have recently considered the Attack Bikes from another angle.

Perhaps the enemy perceives the attack bikes as a threat. So they draw the attention of enemy fire. And though the Attack Bikes only survive a turn or two after arriving on the table. The enemy fire which they draw is enemy fire which is not directed at other units in my army.

This may in fact have been true in my most recent game. However, the previous two games in which my army featured Attack Bikes, it was most certainly not the case.

These games were against High Marshal Hunter's Black Templars. I can certainly say that he did not focus fire on them. He rather ignored them. These games featured the incident with the tree slaying one attack bike among other things.

Perhaps my new angle of thought and analysis concerning my attack bikes is a dream and a wish.

I am afraid that I must conclude that the Attack Bike is losing favor in my sight. If something does not change in the next couple of games, I will change the list removing the attack bikes in favor of another Furioso.


Raptor1313 said...

I would rather take an MM/HF speeder over a bike any day of the week.


MM/HF lets me engage anything I want.

Wounds vs Armor
A single S8, AP3 krak missile kills a bike most of the time. A missile will probably DAMAGE a speeder, but doesn't guarantee death. Plus, you can tear bikes down with small arms, whereas you have to devote anti-tank weapons to speeders.

Squad Rules
If I were going to run attack bikes, I'd run them in regular bike squads to protect them. For Blood Angels, though? Speeders all the way.

Simply put, Speeders may cost more, but they're more versatile and are a bit tougher to destroy. I would field them as separate fast attack choices unless you wanted to field more than 3, in which case I would keep the squads smaller. With AV10, you're more vulnerable to mid-strength, high-rate-of-fire weapons, which hoses you.

brent said...

Take the Furioso just because it is a badass.

CrusherJoe said...

The trick to running attack bikes successfully is don't run them by themselves and expect them to live.

They won't.

Run them with a unit of 4-7 regular bikes (which can also load up on meltaguns -- I know, not the same, but more melta is good melta) and then you've got a unit with some range, speed, staying power and will hit like a 10 pound sledgehammer.

You can also run attack bike squads if you're so inclined. Two squads of two attack bikes -- one MMx2 the other HBx2 -- give you a little staying power, but not as much. You can also run a single, purpose-built AB squad with MMx2 + HB.

Just a couple of ideas. :)

Good luck with your bikes!

Feldmarshal Goehring said...

Good ideas all.

Thank you for reading, and thanks for your comments.

I have much to consider now.