>
Yes, AT weapons take a greater loss in killing power from BM. The most
=
BM that can be inflicted by a single det on another is 4, removing 4 50%
ch=
ances for a kill. 4BM against a FP det reduces FP by 4, removing 2 dice
of=
effect. Even firing at Grechin or Guardians the best odds for a kill
is 5=
0%, and is likely to be much less. My point is that LR are very
potent uni=
ts, and why you would want to take a det of Land Raiders and a
det of Leman=
Russ tanks is beyond me. Take two det of Land Raiders!
Ok, this is a bit=
off the thread, but I think anti-tank weapons firing at Gretchen or Guardi=
ans hit on a 3+. I think the description says these weapons always consider=
the armour to be at least 4. (I don't have a book at the moment, so I may =
be wrong).
If I am that leads to an interesting senario, try running a bun=
ch of gaurdsmen (armour 3, range 30, fp1 ) vs the Landraiders. This might b=
e interesting if the raiders can still only hit on a 4+. I actually like th=
is interpretation, because it gives something of a use to weak infantry.
--=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------
"Your incorrect assumptions are threefold=
."
"You assume law still reigns in the Five Galaxies"
"You assume that we w=
ould be bound by precedents and precepts from the last 10 million years."
"=
But your most incorrect assumption of all is to assume that we care."
=
-David Brin, Infinity's Shore
-------------------------------------------=
----------James Nugent----------------------------------------
- application/ms-tnef attachment: stored
Received on Mon Jun 23 1997 - 11:32:34 UTC