HI!
i´m new to this list i´ve been reading it for 2 weeks. I´ve played
epic for just about 12years and net epic just trough the last year. I
play with Squats.
This with direct fire weapons that cannot damage buildings how does
this work with the Cyklops quite strong cannon? Should that be a
special rule for the army list?
sorry for my bad english its not my native tounge.
//Patrik
--- In netepic_at_y..., "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_c...> wrote:
> 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
Received on Mon Apr 29 2002 - 12:20:03 UTC