Sv: [NetEpic ML] [v5.0] Buildings and fortifiactions

From: <eivind.borgeteien_at_...>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 9:43:41 +0200

Hehe..

Buildings have been the cause of much debate in our group. This is how we do it, nice and simple.

We follow the standard rules for hits and saving throws, all though you have to make a hit roll to see if you do enough damage to do a potential hit on the building. That way you treat the building as any other unit on the battlefield. If the building does not collapse and there are units under the template, you roll to se if you hit them with the -2 penalty.

You can assault buildings even if they are full of stands. (We never really understood that a 10 stories tall building could be so full if people that there where no room for any more!)

Just place the assulting stand on top of the assulted one, but never more than 1 on 1, and if the building has an OP, the stand standing on the OP must be the last one assaulted. That way the defender gets some kind of bonus for defending a building.

Eivind
>
> Fra: "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_...>
> Dato: 2002/04/28 Sun PM 10:42:14 CEST
> Til: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> Emne: [NetEpic ML] [v5.0] Buildings and fortifiactions
>
> Hi!
>
> Unlike, the previous parts of the review where I listed what was in the
> book I will engage in free form discussion of these topics because the
> amount of rewording/mistakes/changes is so high that a re-write is need.
>
> I am dissatisfied with the current building rules due to the following
> factors:
>
> 1. It's all or nothing. Either it falls on a failed save or it doesn't.
> There is no "in between". Buildings don't always just fall or stand they
> get slowly pounded into rubble by artillery of pounded somewhat faster
> by more specialized artillery.
>
> 2. There is no defensive bonus for being in a building. You can assault
> a defensive structure but there is no "benefit" for the defending unit
> to be in the building CAF don't change. It's the same odds out in the
> open as in a building.
>
> 3. How do you hit a building? There are no clear and fast rules. IS it a
> regular to hit? Is there a bonus? When you hit a building with units
> inside can you hit the building or the units? Or both? Too many
> unanswered questions.
>
> 4. How much "protection" does a structure afford? IS the "to hit"
> penalty enough? Or is something more needed?
>
> 5. As they stand the siege rules are incomplete. Granted siege games are
> not that common, but it IS common to use a bunker or two as objectives,
> so we need to define those rules better so as to use in regular games.
>
> The current rules where instituted in version 3.0. They were an offshoot
> of the AT rules. It's a shame I did not "push" the issue more and just
> adopted those rules in total. They answer quite a few questions. Note,
> that I'm not proposing new rules the AT rules are the oldest rules for
> epic and their rules have about 14 years of testing. I will first
> mention the rules then what "patching" we may add.
>
> Buildings
>
> In AT terms all structures had a "damage rating" basically hit points or
> damage points. We can call then "structural points". The saves we keep
> as we have them know, on 2d6. A failed save usually subtracts ONE
> structural point. Some artillery (namely siege artillery like griffons
> and bombards) do more structural damage per failed save than standard
> artillery.
>
> Here are some examples of what building saves and structural points
> could be:
>
> 1. Wood/adobe/ non-concrete or steel structures (i.e Orks huts). Save-
> 9+ on 2d6, 1-2 structural points
>
> 2. concrete, steel re-enforced (i.e standard imperial building). Save 6+
> on 2d6, 3 structural points.
>
> 3. Fortifications- varies (will cove this separately after basic
> building rules).
>
> Artillery Barrages
>
> All artillery barrages do one point of structural damage per failed
> save. Some units like the bombard (d6 points) and griffon (d3 points) do
> more. On average it will take 3 turns to reduce a standard imperial
> building to rubble. It will take a lot less with heavier artillery, but
> it's still unpredictable since it's not a fixed amount.
>
> Probability of collapse
>
> As buildings suffer damage they may collapse. Even without further
> firing at them. This is due to the damage suffered might be greater than
> expected. In every end phase roll a d6 for every building that has been
> damaged (doesn't matter when the damage occurred). If the die roll is
> equal to or less than the amount of structural points a building has
> suffered it collapses prematurely.
>
> Example: An Imperial building is hit by a basilisk barrage and fails its
> save and takes one structural point of damage. It now has two points
> left. In the end phase roll a d6. If a one is rolled the building
> collapses (since the roll is equal to the amount of points it suffered
> [one]). If a 2+ was rolled the building remains standing.
>
> This introduces some uncertainty, since you are now gambling to see if
> the building will stay "up" or not.
>
> Hitting buildings
>
> IN the old days you got a bonus, in net epic terms let's keep it simple
> and say a building is hit by any weapon on a roll of 2+. Let's face it,
> its improbable that a building will not be hit if someone wishes it to
> target it. Besides not all weapons can harm buildings so it only really
> affects those that can. Hitting a building is not the crucial points,
> it's the save. So hitting should be easy, but failing the save harder.
>
> Hitting buildings with troops inside
>
> This question is pretty common, what do I hit? The building? The troops?
> Or both?. For direct fire weapons (non-artillery barrages) the player
> should nominate that the target is the troops OR the building. Most of
> the time it's moot since most direct fire cannot harm the building, but
> for those cases it does the player must choose. Of course either course
> of action has its benefits of drawbacks (hitting the building is easy,
> but it has a high saving throw; hitting the troops is hard, but usually
> not save).
>
> Barrages always hit the building (it's inevitable) and the troops inside
> (as per barrage points and cover modifiers).
>
> Assaulting buildings
>
> Although common sense says some units just can't assault troops in a
> building it does not specifically say who can or can't. Therefore we
> must note what structures (and who can assault them). For example only
> infantry should be allowed to attack in close combat other infantry in
> buildings. On the other hand assaulting a trench, one can add more
> eligible units.
>
> Units like titans or knights with close combat weapons can damage
> buildings automatically being in base-to-base contact with them.
>
> That's the basics, pretty simple, much more informative and direct than
> what we have now. What follows are some of the "perks" I came up with.
>
> Defense against assault
>
> As it stands, there is no point beyond the cover modifier to hit, to
> actually defend a structure versus close combat. There is not benefit
> for being "dug-in" and receive a charge. We already have a dug-in order
> but its worth is dubious. So let's change what a "dug-in order can do:
>
> 1. A dug in order may only be placed on a detachment that is currently
> within a structure or some sort (building, trench, etc). The dug in
> order affords the detachment a bonus in close combat and firing in the
> first fire phase. Note these bonuses ONLY apply if the unit has these
> orders. Detachments engaged in structures on any other orders DO NOT
> receive these bonuses. This adds a tactical benefit to assaulting units
> in structures BEFORE they consolidate, just like in real life.
>
> The CAF bonuses are as follows:
>
> +1 for defending in "light" structures (wood/adobe/non-concrete)
> +2 for defending in "medium" structures (like standard imperial
> buildings).
> +3 for defending in "heavy" structures (like fortifications).
>
> Assault categories
>
> This is not so much a category as a widening definition of existing
> definitions. They refer to the units "ability" to engage units in
> structures.
>
> 1. Excels at assault- these are units like the combat engineers where
> they negate the effects of the "dug-in" order. There are not many units
> like this and gives units like combat engineers added significance.
>
> 2. Standard- these are the bulk or the units. They can assault but have
> to special bonuses or penalties. Dug-in counter bonuses apply as normal.
>
> 2. Poor at assault- these units are just no good in an assault. They
> either can't assault (artillery) or very bad at it (vehicles) or too big
> (titans). These units only recourse is too reduce the structures by
> firepower.
>
> As you can infer you don't have to add anything to the units description
> since "artillery" will already define its assault capability, just as
> much as "infantry" or the "vehicle" designation will.
>
> And that's it! Pretty concise and simple.
>
> Comments?
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
> 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 Mon Apr 29 2002 - 07:43:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:59:37 UTC