On Fri 06 Jun, Mark A Shieh wrote:
> Sean Smith <seans_at_...> writes:
> > On Thu 05 Jun, Mark A Shieh wrote:
> > My reading the rules leads me to believe that Thawks are only available
> > to marines
>
> My reading of the rules seems to show that they can be taken
> as part of an IG Imperial Air detachment. Which makes it kind of
> vague to me, at the very least.
>
> > > Also, using the Ogryns to defend the Heavy troopers may not
> > > work, due to the disparity in armor. You'll either be so close that
> > > the Heavies are shot down, or so far away that the Ogryns aren't
> > > contributing to the fight. As a side effect of not having the books,
> > > this hasn't really been tested.
> >
> > I can't follow your meaning here. Having Ogryns I believe would
> > increase a detachments survivability, because of Ogryns higher armour value.
> > Your could deliberatly put them in front of your heavy weapon troops,
> > so that it would force the enemy troops to roll hits against the Ogryns,
> > who have a higher armour. As long as the enemy doesn't have anti-tank (or
> > similar) weapons in range, in which case it makes no difference.
>
> Take an example where the IG troopers are 45cm away, and the
> Ogryns are 40cm away, and I have 45cm guns. I shoot a bunch of times,
> and roll some 3s, and 5s, and nothing else miraculously (and there is
> no cover). I can allocate the 3s to the nearest opponent in range
> that has a 3+ armor or worse (the Heavies) After all that is
> completed, I can allocate the 5s to the nearest opponent in range that
> has a 5+ armor or worse (The Ogryns, and once all the Ogryns are dead,
> any remaining Heavies). That's what my argument is based on.
Now I see what you mean. But I still think it is better than if
I had mixture of IG tactical and heavy weapon troops, even it is
only if it is because Ogryns give me 2.9x more assault value point
for point than IG tactical troops.
--
Sean Smith
Home - Seans_at_...
--
Received on Thu Jun 05 1997 - 21:17:12 UTC