Re: [Epic] Using old style bases in E40k??r

From: Mike Bowen <mbowen_at_...>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 14:46:58 -0600 (CST)

On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Stephen Sheldon wrote:

> >
> > So since the Ork bikes in 40k have twinlinked A/C, shouldn't they be rated
> > with more fp, rather than just having a longer range? After all, in 40k
> > the Ork bike squadrons outperform their SM counterparts.
> >
> > yeah, its another "orks got screwed in e40k" post from me. sorry.
>
> No they didn't, While twin linked ACs sound like a lot of firepower, they
> really aren't, they are in that awkward category between anti personnel
> and anti tank. Orks can't hit a thing, even when stationary, and the
> autocannon cannot kill anything larger than a marine or scout vehicle,
> whereas a multimelta can slag a couple of vehicles in one hit, and is
> deadly accurate. The only difference should be range...

so why aren't MM attack bikes rated as having an AT shot with a 10-15cm
range? The Heavy bolter is much worse at armor penetration than the A/C,
and has a greater chance of getting jammed. Check out the cost in points
between a MM armed attack bike, and an ork bike in 40k, and then the HB
armed bike.The ork bike cant be beat for its cost. This effectivenes does
not transfer over into e40k

In 40k, an equal number(point wise) or ork bikes will chew up and spat out
the remains of SM Bikes/Attack Bikes, nearly without fail.

orks are more likely to miss at long range with their "average" gunnery
skills, so i think in e40k terms they should have a much shorter range,
with greater fp.

> Yet another useless incoherent grunt from me, thinking that bikes with
> 45cm range is a nice thing indeed...
>

Can't figure out why the orks' titan weapons got reduced in range, while
the bikes have such a long range, other than screwy GW playtesting.


>
> Steve


**

mike
**
Received on Tue Mar 31 1998 - 20:46:58 UTC