Hi!
How so? For example IG can get 30 stands for 600 points. From a
probability point of view they get ZERO hits. You need to invest 1200
(two full companies) to get ONE hit. A terminator company gets around 24
dice from the terminator stands and that gets you an average of ZERO
hits. If you play it out across all armies for similar point's value
everyone get roughly the same amount of "potential" hits.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: rune.karlsen6_at_... [mailto:rune.karlsen6@...]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 9:45 AM
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Sv: RE: [NetEpic ML] RE: Command unit targeting Part III
Hi,
This "9" rule means that armies with lots of cheap infantry
who hit on 5+ will win out. I'd agree that this is a decent
compromise, if you change it to "roll a 9, then roll a tohit roll
using the units tohit".
Rune
>
> Fra: "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_...>
> Dato: 2002/04/25 Thu PM 03:37:42 CEST
> Til: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> Emne: RE: [NetEpic ML] RE: Command unit targeting Part III
>
> Hi!
>
> I gave much thought to the "HQ problem" and I don't like all the
> fiddly-ness that is coming out with the current proposition.
>
> I wondered how to solve it and as many times before Heresy game me a
> clue on how to handle it.
>
> Now, the main issue with HQ units in the battlefield is that they are
> difficult to identify. In fact HQ's go to great lengths to hide the
fact
> they are command units. Of course being close enough to identify them
is
> one solution but from a game mechanics point of view there are too
many
> loopholes (as in the current rules). Another way is to "hinder" or
make
> difficult the ACQUISITION of an HQ unit as a target. The Net Epic
rules
> gives you several ways of doing this (morale checks, penalties to hit,
> etc), but none offer the same level of difficulty to ALL armies (for
> example if you required a morale check for firing at an HQ then armies
> like SM would benefit too much). So, one would have to institute a
rule
> that is absolute in the sense that it affects ALL armies equally.
>
> The idea that I came up with uses the "to hit roll" as the choke
point.
> The rule would read thus:
>
> HQ unit units may be targeted just like any other unit, but since it
is
> difficult to identify and pinpoint such vital units correctly during
the
> confusion of battle the to hit roll to successfully hit a HQ unit is
9.
> That means you need to roll a 6 followed by another 6 on a second die.
> This to hit number is UNMODIFIABLE. It's unmodifiable because the
> ability to identify a HQ unit is dependant on the units capability to
> make that distinction and not how accurate the weapon is. Note this
> applies to ALL weapons, even those who don't have a "to hit" roll. The
> only scenario when the "9" rule does not apply is when the HQ unit is
> actually the closest unit to the firing detachment. In other words if
> you are fortunate enough (or your opponent is foolish enough) to have
HQ
> close to you (more than any other unit) it fair game. If its not the
> closest then its real hard to hit.
>
> Advantages
> 1. It uses the same rules in place, nothing special has been made. You
> have LOS to an HQ unit you can shoot it, but with a to hit of 9 if its
> not the closest.
>
> 2. It eliminates ALL fiddlyness in the apply the rule, nor do we need
> interminable examples for different situations. If it's the closest
> unit, target normally, if not use the "9" rule.
>
> 3. It affects all armies equally, it doesn't matter what weapon or how
> good a "to hit" the unit has you still need a 9 to hit.
>
> 4. It does not needlessly penalize armies heavily dependant on HQ
units
> like IG or orks. Rolling to straight sixes is hard, a chance of one in
> 36. Meaning for every 36 attack dice you get ONE hit, assuming the HQ
> unit doesn't save. You don't even need to play a battle to test this,
> just grab some d6's and roll a bunch of times and see how many "9" to
> hit rolls you get. The difficulty insures that this will not be a
common
> event since excessive shooting at HQ's at those odds will lose you the
> game (those attack dice are best used elsewhere). Also it promotes
> maneuver to get close to HQ's to take them out, as it should be.
>
> 5. It's damn simple, only two things to remember.
>
> I'll let others determine whether there are any disadvantages to this.
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jarreas Underwood [mailto:jarreas_at_...]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 8:40 AM
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [NetEpic ML] RE: Command unit targeting Part III
>
> ><snip>
> > 3) You're firing a template weapon and also cover a valid target.
> >
> >--------> GREAT!! When Im now playing against IG I will always lay
down
> my
> >barrages so they cover the section HQ of the platoon. It is always
> within
> >coherency so it should not be any problem! I have probably
demobilised
> most
> >of his armies within round two!
> >
> >Get real. We cant have this rule. Noone knows exactly where in the
> platoon
> >the section HQ is, so we cant really place barrage on it.
> >
> >Eivind
>
> Hmm... Good point. Thing is, I really don't like the idea of giving a
> blanket immunity to template weapons. I don't want to have my Flamer
> Marines unable to take a really nice shot just because they'd also hit
> the
> SHQ.
>
> Should we make HQ units immune to template weapons?
>
> What about classifying zero-range template weapons (dropped bombs,
> flamer
> templates and such) as Close Combat weapons, thus removing the HQ
> targeting
> restrictions?
>
> Can we rely on the player's sense of fair play to allow targeting the
HQ
> when it makes sense?
>
> *pause*
>
> Ok, so forget that last one. *grin* How about the other two?
> -Yar
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Received on Thu Apr 25 2002 - 13:58:35 UTC