BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11

    Default

    whats the PPM for infiltrators?

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Souba View Post
    whats the PPM for infiltrators?
    Looks like 185 for the dome-heads, +35 ppm.
    And 160 for the gas-mask faces, +30 ppm.

    Each squad starts with 5, can go up to 10.

  3. #13

    Default

    They'll be really tough against basic weapons, but I doubt they'll ever get shot by them when an Autocannon bypasses their save, extra wound, and FNP all at once to bag itself 30+ points a shot. An assault transport MIGHT save them, but I doubt it. I will reserve judgment till I see the rest of the book and what they do on the table, but these are looking all-time bad to me.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheyStoleMyName! View Post
    They'll be really tough against basic weapons, but I doubt they'll ever get shot by them when an Autocannon bypasses their save, extra wound, and FNP all at once to bag itself 30+ points a shot. An assault transport MIGHT save them, but I doubt it. I will reserve judgment till I see the rest of the book and what they do on the table, but these are looking all-time bad to me.
    I've been thinking about stuff like this quite a bit. It's so easy to say 'well they'll be killed by this, so they're useless', but all those kinds of arguments really devolve into 'what if' 'what if' 'what if' debates that actually don't get anywhere. The only way to really see how effective they'll be is to put an army with them in it up against another army, and we're not going to get that done for another couple weeks.

    I think that these guys will synergize well with the rest of the army. When you have Rangers that can pick out those nasty special weapons, cheap walkers that have twin-linked autocannons and lascannons that also have precision shots, and screen them with cheap Vanguard that can lay on the hurt with their base weapon alone, it's not like your opponent will be able to afford to shoot their entire army at this one close combat squad. There will be a lot of different threats on the table, which is what an army should be.

    So yes, an Autocannon would give these guys a hard time. Isn't that the point of screening the models, keeping them in cover, getting into assault faster with the Dunestrider rules, etc? I'm pretty hopeful.

  5. #15

    Default

    Indeed.

    It is of course important to understand the threats to your units, and where they might struggle. But more important is working your way round the drawbacks.

    Interested to see what else follows. I'm hoping for a Flyer and a Transport of some kind.
    Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrBored View Post
    I've been thinking about stuff like this quite a bit. It's so easy to say 'well they'll be killed by this, so they're useless', but all those kinds of arguments really devolve into 'what if' 'what if' 'what if' debates that actually don't get anywhere. The only way to really see how effective they'll be is to put an army with them in it up against another army, and we're not going to get that done for another couple weeks.
    Surely you can't be suggesting that theoryhammer, in isolation, is less than completely accurate? That actually PLAYING the game makes a difference?

    I've always found the "such and such can destroy thingy unit so they're useless" arguments annoying since they always are applied in isolation; what of LOS? cover? bad dice rolls? what else in each army? Sure an autocannon will chew through them, but how many does the opponent have, and what other threats are there? Will it chew through them FAST ENOUGH? Sure, you lose 3 pts a kill, but if enough of the unit gets through to achieve their goal it doesn't really matter.

    And now, my original question; am I correct in my reading of the Transonic that they gain AP2 for the melee only if they get the AP2 wound on the first turn of combat? That appears to be the intent, but the sentence structure makes it arguable. (Replacing the period between "AP2" and "During" with an "and" would have been clearer if that is the intent)

  7. #17

    Default

    AP2 in second and subsequent rounds of that combat regardless.

    Wording isn't ambiguous.
    Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Mystery View Post
    AP2 in second and subsequent rounds of that combat regardless.

    Wording isn't ambiguous.
    I feel this statement may be inaccurate (or, more precisely, accurate but not complete);
    In isolation the sentence would not be ambiguous. However the sentence in question directly follows the "In addition, during the first round...resolved at AP2" sentence, which suggests that it is a follow on to the preceding condition, thus dependent on the condition in the previous sentence being met.
    If the intent is to be AP2 on subsequent rounds regardless the sentence regarding subsequent rounds would have been better placed at the start of the section, so no dependence could be inferred, or list a split AP in the profile, stating the first is for the first round of combat, second for following rounds.

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •