Hi!
There are direct fire weapons that affect buildings. They are few, but
they exist. The Cyclops main weapon is one example, the quake cannon
another. Any such exception will be noted in the rules.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: ex_nihilio [mailto:ex_nihilio_at_...]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:20 AM
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: [v5.0] Buildings and fortifiactions
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
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 - 15:22:10 UTC