>I hardly think they missed the possibility especially since they=20
>mention it in the rules. I would see how the rule plays out
>before making a house rule to "fix" it. It might well be that=20
>units hurled injudiciously forward on marching transports will
>find themselves in middle of the enemy army with no support.
>Even if the enemy units are on assault orders, they can still
>place the normal number of BMs on a unit in range, and it wouldn't
>take alot of blast markers to paralyze the assault unit (and=20
>the it's in for a world of hurt). Also, putting the transports
>on march orders will leave them more than half-way across the=20
>board, unable to fire, unable to move in the assault phase,=20
>probobly without support, and within assault range of all but
>the slowest units (and perhaps them as well). So you might=20
>well end up sacrificing a unit of value equal to the one you=20
>kill. Also, there is no guarentee that you will win the=20
>assault phase initiative, so you might well find your assault
>troops are themselves swarmed under in the assault phase.
>
>I think it's an interesting tactic, and one that could work once
>or twice against someone who doesn't expect it. But I think it
>might also be very risky. It is much more likely to work against
>an isolated flanking unit rather than a unit in the main force,
>and thus have limited yields for a sizable commitment of troops.
>I don't think it qualifies as an unstoppable tactic, or even a=20
>difficult to stop tactic, and I would wait to see how it plays
>out to decide if it's even a good tactic.
>
>Also, there are applications of transport detachments that
>don't yield such strange results. For example, I don't see=20
>anything wrong with a detachment of landraiders on regular orders
>transporting a detachment of assault troops on assault orders.
>This gives the assault troops a modest 10 cm boost to their move
>and lets the raiders be in a position to soften up the target=20
>detachment before the assault. Also, this rule doesn't really
>benifit any army more than another. The only army that can't
>put together a superfast assault force are the orks, but they
>can take advantage of the rule in other ways (ways that could
>counter the superfast detatchment).
>
>David
In theory your arguments are good but I don't know if the reality is
the same...
But OK I will first try it before making a house rule.
Francois Bruntz
Apprenti MIAGE (Universite Paris XII - IBM France)
Please visit my Epic page :
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dungeon/2370/
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at
http://www.hotmail.com
Received on Thu Jul 17 1997 - 07:06:39 UTC