Thane Morgan wrote:
>
> > > 2) We've seen 5 stands of orks boyz run up to a 30 strong detat of
> > > marines for a firefight at extreme range with a couple of troops,
> > > putting the whole detat to flight, and thus preventing stands, who
> > > were nowhere near the firefight but were stuck in the same detat,
> > > from making ork patte.
> >
> > Serves them right for being out on a limb. It's not just things
> > within 15cm that can fight, IIRC, it's things in range.
>
> Actually, only units within 15 cm of enemy can participate. So
> these were not stands out on a limb; just a few cm closer. This
> affected units from the detat 15 cm and more from the firefight,
> though they did not participate. "Look, plattons A and B are taking
> fire; RUN AWAY!!!" is not something I'd imagine a space marine
> saying.
How about, "Fall back and regroup!" Being broken doesn't
neccessarily involve fleeing in absolute terror. And, as someone
else mentioned, use smaller detachments.
> > > 4) Antitank weapons - seem absurdly powerfull. I have yet to see
> > > anyone stand up to my landraider Detats; they usually kill 2-3
> > > times their point value. Frankly, I don't enjoy doing it.
> >
> > LR's are very powerful. If you don't enjoy it, only take them
> > as support, in 1's and 2's.
>
> Yeah, but the point is that if you have to put artificial limitations
> on your forces to keep a game playable, there is probably something
> wrong with the game. Look at Warzone ...
Or Space Marines...
> > > 6) On the matter of snap shots, we've seen two stands of troops
> > > prevent the movement of a twelve land raider detat (pinned up
> > > against cliffs); he tried to move 5 of them, losing 4, then gave
> > > up. Doesn't this seem a little un-fun and ridiculous? Shouldn't
> > > their be a limit on the number of snap shots a detat can pull?
After looking at the rules, trying to move past the infantry
is just silly. It won't work - as soon as the person commanding the
infantry declares snap-fire, the moving unit stops. Period, as in
for the rest of the phase. IOW, the snap-fire shot is there as a
penalty for moving too close, but there's no way you can move through
enemy units in the movement phase even if you want to take the risk.
> more stuff:
> > I've seen even more games of Space Marines come down towho won the
> > initiative for 2 out of the 3 turns in a game.
>
> Actually, as a player who won ~ %90 of my space marine games, I can
> tell you that while losing initiative sucked, it was not especially
> devasting. It meant that you had to take a more defensive than
> offensive posture.
SM does not favor taking a defensive posture. Losing
initiative means that you are completely unable to respond to your
opponent's CC moves. It also means you can't CC skimmers, which
hurts when you're playing a CC army against Eldar.
> > Uh, snap-fire is there so that you won't move that
> > close to an enemy detachment in the movement phase. If you
> > want to get that close, go on assault orders.
>
> OK, I hadn't made the situation clear. The LR's needed to move to
> kill a warlord around the corner. They had infantry which in real
> terms could have "protected their backs". See above for further
> absurdities with snap fire.
I don't see the absurdity. The tanks (and their infantry
support) are not going to just drive by enemy troops that are that
close ("Hi Joe!" "Hi Tom!") without eliminating them first. In
game terms, this means that you have to kill them in the shooting
or assault phase before you can move into position to kill the
Warlord titan.
If you want a counter-example, picture the same situation in
a game of Space Marines: Your LRs are on advance orders, and need to
round the cliff to shoot at a Warlord around the corner. The two
remaining stands of your opponent's tac platoon are on charge orders
and pin some LRs, keeping most of the detachment from moving to where
you need them to be. Sure, the tac stands die, but they held you up
for a turn.
> (Flyers)-
> Why is everyone saying this, was there a white dwarf I missed? Is
> the english version different from the american? I can't see anything
> on P.47 of the rule book that says interception happens before the
> planes reach the table (though I agree it would be better if it did).
> It says to place the non-interceptors on the table edge, then place
> the interceptors next to them, in my book.
Of course, there's nothing about allowing snap-fire shots
against the interceptors...
Scott Shupe
shupes_at_... shupes@...
http://www.rpi.edu/~shupes
***********************************************************************
"Don't you laugh, damn you, don't you laugh!" - Clockwork Orange
Received on Mon Dec 08 1997 - 18:56:22 UTC