Re: [NetEpic ML] More brainstorming

From: Zerloon <zerloon_at_...>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:37:03 +0100

>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.

Well, is not true that it doesn't change, since with the old rule between a
Warhound and a Reaver there are only 4 point of difference, that on a 2d6
isn't too much... In the version you propose these difference are, of
course doubled, and 8 on 2d6 there are lot of difference!!!!!
Personally I think the anti personnel rule is good, also that Titan are
never outnumbered. Peraph you can make the anti personnel save roll of 6+
and 5+ instead, and become very silly engage a Titan...
Or, instead of doubling add a fixed numer (10 for example) in this manner
theyre quite more powerful but not change the difference between titans.

>
>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.

... Boh? For example, the Elite could be a limitation (max two for
company), or can ignore the first morale test... or the first stand in CC
do not count for outnumber... or the unit at 10 cm from an elite take +1 to
morale test... or one for battle can reroll a shoot... or a save roll...
well you understand!!! ^___^

>
>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.

I'm not seeing the problem... the actual rules are quite simple... in this
version you must trak che point of every building... in a city battle this
could be too heavy... pheraps like optional rule...

Zerloon
Received on Wed Mar 27 2002 - 18:37:03 UTC