[NetEpic ML] Re: Rules Proposition X

From: Warprat <warprat_at_...>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 21:55:31 -0800

My comments, for what thier worth. See below.


Daniel Wiebell wrote:
> Howdy people,
> >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.
> I don't like the way this infantry save business is going for a couple
> reasons.
> 1. Its another dice roll if infantry have saves against most weapons.

Most infantry that don't get saves now, would not get saves with the
improved, tougher infantry saves. So only a little more dice rolling.


> 2. The proposition makes anti-tank weapons unbelievably powerful. If a
> lascannon gets its save mod against armoured targets, and twice its save mod
> against infantry, why take any other gun?!?!? Firing a lascannon, a slow
> recharge, no blast template weapon, at a spread out squad which is trying
> its goddamn best not to get shot, would be incredibly difficult.
> My suggestion; don't give infantry saves, make any weapon classified as
> anti-tank have a -1 to hit them. Since this whole thing was mainly brought
> up to make terminators harder, why not classify terminators as hard targets
> (if we are going with the soft/hard target system)? That way you would have
> to shoot at them with anti-tank weapons to hurt them. That should toughen
> them up a bit.


The other thing increased saves would do is make armored infantry like
Terminators, Dark Reapers, Exarchs, Nobs, Space Marines Tacticals,
etc...harder to kill with infantry weapons. That's the REAL change.

I see it as a good thing. These units have some armor, armor should
count for something. Infantry should have a little harder time against
them. Tanks vs. infantry would stay about the same, except for
Termanators and thier equal, faring a little better than they do now vs.


> >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.
> I am one hundred percent behind this suggestion. Why have the weapon
> locations got the same save as the reactor!?!?!?
> Well, that's my two cents for the moment.
> Dan
> ______________________________________________________
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Collegeclub.com has got it all--over a million members,
> spicy message boards, and thousands of personals. But we
> don't have YOU for a member. Click here to join!
> http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1853
> -- Create a poll/survey for your group!
> -- http://www.egroups.com/vote?listname=netepic&m=1
Received on Tue Dec 14 1999 - 05:55:31 UTC

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