Re: [Epic] Re: Squat Cheese

From: Chad Taylor <ct454792_at_...>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 23:22:10 -0500 (EST)

On 20 Jan 1997, Cameron Bentsen wrote:

> Incidentally, one significant reason why many people prefer the Firestorm
> to the Thunderfire, despite the fact that they cost 50 more points per
> model, is that the Firestorms weapons all have range 100, while the
> Thunderfire's secondary guns only have a range of 75 (I think,) which really
> means they only have a range of 50 against high-altitude bogies. Not very
> effective. For straight firepower the Thunderfires are better, but they don't
> cope with adversity very well (can't move away from CC, limited effectiveness
> when firing into cover or at high-fliers or at fast-movers, no armour to speak
> of, etc.) Still, they're good AA platforms in most conventional situations,
> especially when dealing with T-hawks...
> Cameron Bentsen, Ottawa

Just a thought: I prefer (actually fear) the Firestorm over the
Thunderfire because the Firestorm is a skimmer. One of my favorite
tactics to deal with snap-fire weapons is to take a detachment of
Thunderbolt or marauder (imperial flyers) and charge them into CC with
snap-fire weapons on the first turn. The idea is that the snap-fire
weapons will have to shoot down the offending flyers (using up their
snap-fire shots) or be pinned in CC and be unable to engage other targets.
The plan is that this will clear the way for my Thunderhawk gunships.
Firestorms of course can't be pinned and are there for immune to this
tactic. Besides, the Firestorm isn't a bad "tank" even if you ignore the
snap-fire ability.

Chad Taylor
Received on Tue Jan 21 1997 - 04:22:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:01 UTC