Re: [NetEpic ML] Dreadnaughts
Hi,
I had this crazy idea a while ago about how Rhinos might carry Dreadnaughts.
I figure that even if Rinos could carry dreadnoughts inside, they are so big
and
cumbersome they would be slow climbing in and out. But what about carrying
them on the OUTSIDE of the the vehicle? After all, they already have their
own
armour plating. There could be special Rhinos rigged with big metal pincers
on
each side that can securely carry them. It could be like having the lifting
part of
a forklift on either side, but with extra restraints. If the Rhino takes a
hit, the
dreads would have to survive an additional saving throw against their own
armour.
(At least the one on the side that was hit). They can't fire while
attached, and the
Rhino can't carry infantry. Maybe the Rhio should go slower due to the extra
weight?
When the Dreads want to disembark - the Rhino stops, the metal claw releases
them and they trundle off.
What do you think?
Peter Cornwell
Peter Ramos wrote:
> Hi!
>
> As I see it we will probably let robots and dreadnoughts use drop pods
> and t-hawks, maybe even rhinos or other transports, but we'll see. I
> think these will increase their tactical options.
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Webb [mailto:tom.webb_at_...]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 9:28 AM
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [NetEpic ML] Dreadnaughts
>
> Hi all,
>
> I know this has been brought up before, but what are we doing
> about
> Dreadnaughts, I have loads, I love the models... yet I never take them
> as
> they are too slow to use effectively. If we increased there movement to
> 15
> they would be worth taking, at the moment, I leave them behind.
>
> Last time we had this discussion I made a special effort and did
> some
> for the EZines battle report, they achieved nothing, I had to charge
> them
> to get them into range and then they failed to do any damage. My IG
> Sentinels cost the same and you get more, but they rocked, using there
> speed and firepower to knock out the enemy.
>
> Tom.
>
> ************************************************************
>
Received on Thu Apr 18 2002 - 08:46:02 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:59:35 UTC