> >Advice - I would never take any of them at all. They
> > are to slow for troop transports and they
> > sitting ducks for anti tank weapons and 3 units
> > of marines (worth 45 points) have the same
> > assault value. The only benefit of
> > battlefortresses is their fire power. But other
> > Ork units can give you greater firepower for less
> > cost in points.
>
> I think you made a big mistake here.
>
> 1) Yes, you can get more fp for the same points, but does it have the same
> durability?
I think the durability goes the other way personally.
> 2) Ditto, but does it have the same psychological effect? You can get more
> fp than most WEs from other detachments in all armies, but WEs are still
> worth it.
What are WEs? As for psychological affect, every time my imperial guard
army sees a battlefortress it goes, 'excellent easy meat here boys!'
> 3) You compare it to 3 marines, but that is not valid for the same reason
> comparing 3 gretchin to a marine is not valid. It can still only be
> attacked by 2 units at a time (half of 4 DC is 2).
Fair point, I have always taken out battlefortresses using firepower.
> 4) You have neglected the fact that it is a heavy concentration of firepower
> in one place. 3 Battlefortresses can beat most detachments in a ff or cc
> because they can hit a very small portion of the enemy detachment, but they
> still get all their abilities. Especially considering that Orks get a bonus
> on initiative for the assault phase, I think this is VERY important.
>
Umm, my IG has only faced one at time and they have always been killed on the
first turn, so I haven't had face this situation
> All in all, I don't think this was as well though out as your IG opinions.
> No offense.
>
I can but try, and no offense taken as usual. I enjoy the debate these
articles have inspired.
--
Sean Smith
Home - Seans_at_...
--
Received on Mon Jun 23 1997 - 20:29:53 UTC