On Fri 06 Jun, Mark A Shieh wrote:
> 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>
You make an excellent point Mark :). I agree that sentinels have greater
survivability and firepower than Rough Riders. However IG heavy weapon troops
have greater firepower and range than sentinels. But I will amend my article
to include your comments.
--
Sean Smith
Home - Seans_at_...
--
Received on Fri Jun 06 1997 - 00:40:53 UTC