> > Do people find that flyers are too powerful without
> > the h=
ouse rule that makes them fly all the way across the
> > board? It certain=
ly seems like using that rule would
> > drastically change the flyers' effe=
ctiveness, but of course
> > the points stay the same.
>
> Honestly, I thin=
k that would make flyers almoust useless, because
> you would be destroyed =
as it flew across the rest of the board. If
> nothing else, you have to fly=
over the detachment you are aiming at,
> that's 5-10 snap fire rolls right=
there.
It's not that bad. Flyers don't have to fire straight
ahead in t=
heir flight path - if you want to shoot at a detachment
you fly at a tangen=
t to it. At the very least you'll be able to
hit detachments at the front =
lines, but getting to the juicy targets
in your opponent's back field is a =
little tougher.
> Personally, I don't like
> the idea of troops snap-firin=
g at flyers, it just doesn't feel right,
> either that or the flyer should =
get a +1 armour or something. It's
> hard to imagine guys pulling out pisto=
ls and shooting down aircraft
> moving at mach 2+. I know the germans shot =
down B-17s with rifles
> during the Polesti(sp?) raid, but there is a diffe=
rent between a jet
> aircraft and a huge piston driven bomber less than 50 =
feet up.
Most infantry squads will have heavy weapons that would
be capab=
le of taking down aircraft. Of course, that doesn't account
for the tyrani=
ds being able to snap-fire...
During a game we actually came up with a spe=
cial ability called NoGuns. Units with this special ability have no firepow=
er whatsoever, the unit is entirly dedicated to killing the enemy in CC, th=
is was for things like genestealers, deamons, ect. Units with this ability =
do not snap-fire, do not support CC and of course have 0 FP in firefights, =
It reduces the unit cost by 1 point.
-------------------------------------=
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"=
Your incorrect assumptions are threefold."
"You assume law still reigns in =
the Five Galaxies"
"You assume that we would be bound by precedents and pre=
cepts 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 Tue Jul 01 1997 - 11:33:47 UTC