"Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_...> on 27/03/2002 12:16:34
Please respond to netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
cc:
Subject: [NetEpic ML] More brainstorming
Hi!
Here are some more things that I remembered:
1. Chimeras should be the default APC for IG and eliminate rhinos.
-> Agreed
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
-> I don't know unless we double the amount of dice they roll in CC as
well it will not increase there CC ability in proportion. EG: A warhound
that was CAF + 8 vs a Reaver that was CAF + 12.
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.
-> Agreed, perhaps if you said that enemy troops never get to use
multiple dice in CC when they outnumber them, this will represent there
superior training.
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.
-> Agreed
Comments.
Peter
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
************************************************************
This email has originated from a shared mail relay station for Bull
Information Systems Ltd (Registration No: 2017873) and Integris Ltd (a
Steria company, Registration No: 2706218).
Privileged, confidential and/or copyright information may be contained in
this email, and is only for the use of the intended addressee. To copy,
forward, disclose or otherwise use it in any way if you are not the
intended recipient or responsible for delivering to him/her is prohibited.
If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately,
by using the reply facility in your email software.
We may monitor the content of emails sent and received via our network for
the purposes of ensuring compliance with policies and procedures.
This message is subject to and does not create or vary any contractual
relationships between Bull Information Systems Ltd or Integris Ltd.
Both offices registered at: Computer House, Great West Road, Brentford,
Middlesex, TW8 9DH
*************************************************************
Received on Wed Mar 27 2002 - 12:25:37 UTC