On Mon 23 Jun, Richard Dewsbery wrote:
> > I have to disagree I don't think that Land raiders that susceptable to BMs.
> > In my example even in the second round of firing the Land raiders could
> > inflict 4.5 kills vs 1 kill for the remaining two Leman Russ
>
> By your examples, the land raiders place 2 BMs, the Lman russ's 3. Now
> on the next turn's shooting,, the land raiders (assuming full strength
> from the previous turn) will have 15 AT shots. This is a 17% reduction
> in their shooting. The leman russ - with 2BMs on the detachment, have a
> reduction of 2 from their firepower - they will now throw 14 dice to
> hit. This is a 7% reduction in their shooting. So, leaving casualties
> to one side for the moment, the land raiders are far more susceptable to
> BMs, and cannot place as many themselves. In a one-on-one shooting
> exchange between the 2, I'd place all of my money on the land raiders.
> But in a prolonged set of exchanges involving infantry as well, I'd
> expect the Land Raiders to come under more supressive fire earlier.
First my comparsion involved equal value in points of Landraiders and
Leman Russ, if you want to include infantry, you are going to have to reduce
the number of Leman Russ to ensure it is still a valid comparsion.
Second, you can't just igorn casualities and still have a valid comparsion.
The reality is that casualities inflicted on the Leman Russ in previous turns
affect how much firepower they have in future turns.
Overall your arguments are flawed because they are trying to compare apples
with oranges.
--
Sean Smith
Home - Seans_at_...
--
Received on Sun Jun 22 1997 - 21:39:32 UTC