[NetEpic ML] Re: Helping Titans Survive the Modern World.....

From: Warprat <warprat_at_...>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 21:07:13 -0800

Kelvin, I have some ideas for your Armor System.

As I see it the problems are two. Shields are not strong enough vs.
small weapons; and heads, reactors, and legs are too vulnerable. Larger
titans should have stronger armor, smaller titans less. Most people
like the titan templates as they are now, so they can roll aiming dice.
My proposed modification to your plan. Simple, and easy.

Make ablative armor reduce by the armor save modifier of the attacking

So: A Devastator would reduce the armor by 1 point.
    A Landraider would reduce the armor by 2 points.
    A Tempests Laser would reduce the armor by 3 points.
    A Titan Plasma Destructor would reduce the armor by 6 points.

When the Ablative Armor is reduced to 0, roll a normal save
(with save modifiers,) for that location, for the rest of the game.


A tempest Laser hits a Warlord titan's reactor location with
3 Ablative Armor Points remaining. The three points of ablative armor
have now been completly removed, the location must now make a normal
saving throw. The saving throw for that location is a 2+, as mormal.

If another shot hits the same location, the ablative armor will not
absorb any more damage, because it had been removed by the earlier shot.
Save again, as normal, for that location.

Warlords should have Ablative values of:

Head 6 pts.
Reactor 5 pts. (Because the reactor is exposed on front and back.)
All legs 3 pts. (The lower legs have a variable save value.)
All other locations 2 pts.

Reavers should have values lower than Warlords because of smaller size.

Head 5 pts.
Reactor 2pts. (Because it's only exposed in the rear.)
All legs 2 pts.
All other locations 1 pt.

Warhound Scout Titans should have values of:

Head 3pts. (The small titan template are part of thier protecton.)
Reactor 1pt (Because it's only exposed in the rear.)
All legs 1 pt.
All other locations 0 pts.

The other problem is that shields are as vulnerable to Devastators as
they are to a Titan Plasma Destructor. Why not increase the number of
shields by a factor of 2, but reduce them, when hit, by the weapon's
save modifier?

So: A Devastator would reduce 1 shield.
    A Landraider would reduce 2 shields.
    A Tempest Laser would reduce 3 shields.
    A Titan Plasma Destructor would reduce 6 shields.

The Warlord, would now have double the number of shields (to 12,) they
would operate the same way, and regenerate the same way.

All other units with shields could also use the same rules. There would
be little need for any kind of points cost adjustment.

Titans and other units with templates, would need to be evaluated, and
adjusted for Ablative Armor and increased Cost.

This entire system would need to be play tested.

What do you think?



> >Kelvin, I like your Armor System, even better than the one in Incoming.
> >It would address the armor thickness problem, little titans having less
> >vs. big titans having more, without giving up the titan templates.
> Thanks.
> >A couple of things I don't like about it. It would make all titans even
> >tougher than they are now, and I'm pretty happy with thier current
> >strenghs and weaknesses. The other problem, as I see it, is that all
> >the titans would have to be adjusted and ballanced against each other.
> >That would take a lot of work, and playtesting.
> O.K. With the overhaul of the current edition of the NetEpic rules, we are
> talking about introducing saves for infantry, making them somwhat tougher.
> If this is going to be the case, then I think Titans need an increase to
> their toughness. I agree that they should not be too tough but currently,
> once a titan's shields go down, they are vulnerable to all weapons, even
> infantry ones. That's a bit too much for me. Titans are supposed to be
> lord of the battlefield. They need the support of other forces, sure but
> in the end, they should be kings. We need rules to represent this.
> Everyone, don't get me wrong. I think Titans need to be vulnerable and
> should be made so that people need to use a bit of tactical thinking to use
> them. But in their current form I think they are too vulnerable. I only
> seek to make them a bit more survivable.
> With the changes I proposed, we can protect the more vulnerable areas of
> the Titans (heads, reactors, shield generators, etc) while leaving the rest
> of the locations as vulnerable as they used to be. Anti-armour and
> anti-Titan weapons can simply do more than one point of damage to the
> Armour rating of the location while lighter weapons will on do one point.
> This way, the enemy is forced to either concentrate lighter firepower on
> the Titan or use the anti-armour or anti-Titan weapons in their arsenal to
> take care of it (which is as it should be). Currently, you use
> Devastator-style troops to take out the shields and then just unload any
> other firepower you have into it. Once unshielded it doesn't take too much
> to knock a Titan out. With the increased damage capacity, there is less
> guarentee of knocking the Titan down with anything but the most powerful of
> weapons (like a Volcano cannon or Quake Cannon).
> Yes, points values will probably need to be increased for the Titans, but
> by limiting the areas significantly protected by the armour ratings I don't
> think they will need to be increased by much at all. On a Warlord for
> example, I think the Head and Reactor locations would need 3 points each,
> the Legs and Carapace locations 2 (to represent the extra toughness of
> those areas) and everywhere else either 1 or 0. All actual Saves for those
> areas stay the same (i.e., 1+ for the Head, 2+ for the Reactor, etc). Now
> it is harder (but not impossible) to take out a Warlord. It is still
> vulnerable to weapons that ignore shields (and I would make them ignore
> Armour Ratings as well) such as Warp Missiles, Deth Rays, Tremor Cannons
> and Vortex Missiles but infantry and lighter vehicle weapons will have a
> harder (and usually longer) time taking the thing down. Gargants would
> have very little (at most 2 in the Boiler's front with 1 on the Head, other
> Boiler locations and weapons and 0 everywhere else) and the Eldar could
> have a similar spread to a Warlord or Reaver. The Imperator and Mega
> gargant could have them too, but we'd need to be careful with the Imperator
> as it is already pretty darned tough!
> >I really do like your idea though.
> Thanks. It needs some scrutiny, but I think we could make it work very well.
> -Kelvin....
> ============================================
> "Of course I'm paranoid!
> Everyone's trying to kill me."
> ============================================
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to tablesaws.
> http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1701
> -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
> -- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/netepic/?m=1
Received on Tue Dec 14 1999 - 05:07:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:58:49 UTC