More brainstorming

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:16:34 -0400

Hi!

Here are some more things that I remembered:

1. Chimeras should be the default APC for IG and eliminate rhinos.
2. Titans versus non-titan/praetorian units in close combat

I am very disatisfied with the last solution we gave this for version 4.0/4.1. After much playtest I think its clunky and still doesn't resolve all issues, while it raises new ones. Orignally titans used the same rules as everything else, the problem there was you could swarm it with a detachment of IG or equally cheap points and take the titan out quite easily with little investment. Quite cheesy. Then we came up with an anti-personel system that made it impossible for infantry to do anything against a titan. While it should be improbable it should at least be possible with better troops. That wasn't good so it was changed again to the current system which is a meld of the two system and produces an average result. As some have pointed out its not that great either and I agree.

So what to do? I'd like to go back to the original system, but with a small change. Why not just increase titan's CAF? I always thought it odd that a warhound titan and a stand of exarchs have the same CAF. Granted Exarchs are tough, but are they REALLY a match for a titan? I say no. Here what I'd do, just double the standard CAF of all titans an it would something like this:

Warhound +16 CAF
Reaver +24 CAF
Warlord +30
Imperator + 44

It doesn't change the outcomes of titan-to-titan battles since proportionally its the same as before, but it does give them a lot of backbone versus non titan units. Swarming can be done, but its only effective with premium units and then only a lot of them, as it should be. The main advantage is no more clunky rules and a more satisfying result.

3. Elite units. These need redefining and it should mean something. If the above suggestion were to be used then elites don't mean much. So what to do with them? I don't have a good idea for this. Hopefully someone will.

4. Building resilience. The current rules have gone a long way to make buildings what they should be-protective structures. The rules are still somewhat unclear. Also what weapons destroy or only damage buildings, while useful, still get a little clunky to remeber. I STILL like the old AT system which is as follows: All structions basically have the equivalent of hit points (call them structual points, damage rating or what have you). Any weapon capable of affecting buildings does one point of damage if the building fails its save. Some weapons like bombards, vortex and such do more than one (d6, d3, etc). These are easy to include in the units rules as opposed to cross referencing table to remeber which destroy and which do not.

Comments.

Peter
Received on Wed Mar 27 2002 - 12:16:34 UTC