Sean Smith <seans_at_...> writes:
> > Because they move faster, and have more staying power. At 9
> > points each vs. 15 points each? and a 4+save vs. a 5+save, they are
> > marginally more difficult to destroy with FP, slightly easier with
> > barrages, and more difficuly by far with AT/Death Ray shots. The
> > detachment is still cheap, but has become ridiculously difficult to
> > reduce to 1/2 strength.
> > detachment. But I'm not claiming that the Sentinel is the solution to
> > all IG problems, just a good unit to use as a basic trooper.
>
> As far as I can see in the rules sentinels are treated as cavalry, this
> means they can't enter buildings and fortfications; and treat ruins, rubble
> and woods as dangerous, where as infantry treat these all as no effect.
Their relative cost to a IG Tactical trooper more than makes
up for the 1/6 loss that may occur in dangerous terrain, IMHO. YMMV,
and all those neat acronyms. They also start with a one higher save
than a Tactical stand. And with the number of troopers IG ought to be
fielding, not all of them are going to be in cover anyway. With
twice? the movement, these guys should be in at least as good a
position as Tactical troopers would be.
> This the first disadvantage I see Sentinels have. Their second disadvantage is
> that point for point charging cavalry have 160% more assault value i.e
> 30 points of charging rough riders have an assault value of 6 vs 3.75
> for sentinels. Also rough riders charging have the same armour.
Right. So if you want assault troops, field rough riders. No
argument here. Especially since GW denies any prior existence of the
so called "IG assault trooper" and "IG Bike".
> The only thing going for sentinels is there numbers and firepower; but
> heavy weapon IG troops have more fire power, greater range and can occupy
> terrain that sentinels can't assault (the same as marine devastors).
More fP? Damn, I miss my rule books. :( But surely these
Heavy Weapon IGs can't make up the entire force? They need something
to stand in front of them. I propose Sentinels.
> Overall I would use rough riders instead of sentinels, because of
> the rough riders higher assualt value, point for point.
Yes, but you're forgetting the main purpose of a tactical
trooper. point for point, Sentinels take longer to die than almost
anything else in the army. That alone should be enough reason to put
five of them at the head of a pack of charging rough riders. They
might be shot at, and which would you rather lose, 8-9 (can't
remember) points of Sentinel, or 10-11 (also can't remember) points of
Rough Rider? Once they get there, Rough Riders and Sentinels support
+1 to total assault at identical effectiveness, but Sentinels are more
effective point for point. These aren't just tactical troopers,
they're fast tactical troopers. <grin>
Mark
(Old timers may recall me making similar arguments involving the Epic
2nd Eldar Jetbike)
Received on Thu Jun 05 1997 - 20:45:20 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:32 UTC