Re: [NetEpic ML] [v5.0] HQ hitting (my proposal) (long)

From: Albert Farr� Benet <cibernyam_at_...>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 21:44:33 +0200

  
  X.Y.1. Distance from HQ: (25 cm +) No chance of spotting an HQ. None. Nil. Zero. No way.

  Quite clear, I think. You cannot shot weapons directly at HQ. You can try to get a lucky shot firing at surrounding stands (See X.Y.1.3). Of course, you can shot at thwem if closer unit of pinning class or alone (no other troops in a 15 cm radius). HQ units on top of objectives are VALID targets.

   

  So they function like Eldar scouts, if they are more than 25cm away from the firing unit you can't EVER shoot at them. Is that correct?



  ---->Yes, in part. You can shoot at them if they are closer than other units of the same pinning size, or alone. If not, you cannot aim to an HQ because you don't know which trooper unit is an HQ and which not (I think is quite more complex than that but it can be simplified this way). So, your options (without snipers) to attack an HQ unit go with attacking the group and expect to hit it on a lucky shot (quite logical, BTW) or throwing barrages onto him and his group. I don't find reasonable to spot a tactical section HQ in a full platoon at 60 cm. You can be lucky and hit him, but I think it's absolutely illogical and cheesy to concentrete all fire on an HQ at those distances.



   



      X.Y.1.2. Special Case: Barrage. I always considered barrage doesn't need to be placed on top of a model, but try to catch as many models as you can. Ok, we got an HQ unit under it. If the HQ is part of a detachment, add stands still alive outside from the barrage, plus any other stands (not under the barrage, of course) at 6 cm (Optional: 10 cm) or less of the HQ. Throw a dice and add number of stands, on a roll of 7+ the HQ was covered by another stand on the last instant and a randomly chosen stand is hit instead.

      (Optional) A roll of 1 always means the HQ was hit. Bad luck.

   

  Why not simplify it by rolling a d6, if you roll "x" number or more it's in the blast zone.



  ---->It's the same idea, actually. In plain language HQ gets a "cover" saving throw depending on the number of troopers around it. If it's saves, another randomly chosen trooper is hit instead. If it's better understood this way, here's a table:



  troopers of the same unit+troopers around ST

  1 6+

  2 5+

  3 4+

  4 3+

  5 2+

  6 1+ (Optional: On 1 HQ is always hit)



  this way we negate posible cheese with HQ units wandering with one or two guards. This rule is easier to use than to read.







   

      X.Y.1.3. Lucky Shot: When shooting a unit cointaining an HQ you can ask for a lucky shot.You can also ask for it if there's an HQ at less than 6 cm. (opt: 10cm) of targetted unit, but then you have to lose one atack die. If a unit containing an HQ, or a unit with an HQ at less than 6 cm is shot, throw a dice for each hit. Substract one to the result of each die for each stand present in the unit or at less than 6 cm (Opt: 10 cm) if it's from other units; on a roll of 4+ you got a lucky shot and the HQ was hit! otherwise a normal stand was hit Dice is throwed simultaneously.

   

  Pretty complex, but I can't thin any way to simplify it.



  ---->Same as before. Very easy to use. You score 4 hits on a support platoon composed of 3 stands (including SHQ; so, 2 cover stands). Roll four dice, any 5 or 6 means a shot to the SHQ. It's easier. And I know, chances to hit SHQ in tactical platoons at full are meaningless, but otherwise IG army would be of no use. Note that crowded groups of units allow long life for HQ, but price isn't cheaper at all. You risk a lot of damage from barrages. Actually is quite more probable to catch the HQ with a barrage than with a shot (Unless using snipers, of course!)





  I don't disagree with your logical, but HQ targeting becomes a rule set onto themselves with all these rules!



  ---->Well, after a week of discussions, I see no other way to face this problem. If you allow to target HQs then Cheese!! if you don't allow to target HQs then Cheese!! again. I think the problem is in targeting. And the solution comes ruling the fact that HQ cannot be volntarily targeted but luckily hit. Please, I want you to understand that these rules seem quite complex, but actually they aren't:



  Far from the HQ: you can only hope to get a lucky shot. If more than 5 units around you can simply skip that. If not, then roll and substract number of stands. You get 4+ you got him! If you fire barrages over long distances, don't expect to catch the HQ unless there's less than 4 stands near it.



  Short Distances: If Barraging, you GOT him. If not, loose one die and roll, roll cover ST for the first hit, then for the second, and so on. Once you get him is finished, other shots are lost.. Note that with 6 or more stands around you can't get him unless you clear that mess a bit. I have to state that part of the firing detachment may fire at the target platoon and the other part try to shot at their leader. You can just simply fire at the detachment as normal and apply lucky shot rule.



  Quite frankly I'm stuck on this problem. You may be right that only something this detail will solve the problems, but I wonder if there is still a simpler way out.

   

  Peter

   

  ---->As I said before chances to catch an HQ surrounded by troops over long distances should be meaningless, while still making them vulnerable. Simpler rules either:

  - cover only one part of the problem and leave the other open (HQ inmune/ HQ=normal trooper)

  - Allow for lots of Cheesie tactics.



  I don't know. I think we'll have to face a compromise on this issue. Either we take a simpler way out and expect fair play and common sense (which I have to say, is an important laking of a lot of power gamers) or we try to find a set of rules that covers the issue and allows for the least Cheese as possible. I've chosen the second way, because there are at least two armies which depend heavily on HQ units. If we don't find an optimized solution this two armies will automatically become underbalanced or overbalanced. I'll kindly ask if anyone has a match this weekend if he could test this system. Please give it a chance, it's easier than it seems.



  Albert Farr�
Received on Fri Apr 26 2002 - 19:44:33 UTC