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

From: Luca Lettieri <l.lettieri_at_...>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 21:49:04 +0100

On 14 Dec 99, at 9:29, Lorenzo Canapicchi wrote:

> Kelvin wrote:
> > 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.
> You are completly right, for this reason I don't like this
> "strengthen", Epic scale IMHO should abstract from those things, I
> understand save only for very few pieces (usually a 6+ or 4+ just for
> a single piece) better leave saving throws for veichles My 2c

From a couple of comments, I think this differentiated soft/hard
targets thing has been interpreted the wrong way. Wrong from my
perspective, anyway.

The current saves (or rather lack of it) for infantry are completely
adequate, as far as I'm concerned. The intent of the proposed rule
(anti-tank getting double modifier versus "soft" targets) is NOT to
give "general" infantry better saves and thus making it stronger. At
least, that's not what I had in mind when I agreed upon it.

The problem lies in that few infantry pieces (Termies are a prime
example, of course, but also some of the eldar aspect warriors and
a few others) who get the short end of the stick from the current

As it is, Epic rules do not offer sufficient "resolution" to adequately
simulate extra-hard infantry types; this is because:

either you give them a "normal" save, and thus you make them
vulnerable to normal infantry armed with heavy weapons with
or you give them a fixed save, and you render them invulnerable
to anti-tank weapons

Look at termies: in the original rules they got a 6 save, now they
have 5+ with fixed 6; they are STILL too vulnerable to lots of
infantry stands with save modifiers, while they should be out of
league for anything but the most powerful infantry weapons while
being easy prey to anti-tank. But what else can we do? Giving
them a good fixed save (say, 4+) will make them too strong. Even
a Termie should be in trouble when hit by a plasma annihilator. But
even giving them a low normal save (say, 2+) will make them too
resistant to low-power anti-tank weapons.

The proposed rule efficiently solves this problem with a minimum of
hassles. I'll try to expose a first explanatory draft of my idea of the

Soft weapons against soft targets, and hard weapons against hard
targets, work as usual. But, if a hard weapon hits a soft target, the
weapon save modifier is multiplied by X; the minimum possible
modifier is Y (i.e. even if the hard weapon initial modifier is 0, it still
gets an Y modifier against soft targets).

(note: I haven't added anything about soft weapons against hard
targets; this is because I feel this is quite another matter entirely,
which should be discussed separately; my personal opinion is that
soft weapons should work normally against hard targets, i.e.
remain as they are now, otherwise infantry becomes useless.
Basically, the rule as proposed modifies only the case where an
anti-tank weapon hits infantry).

Why this works? for the following reasons:

for the most part, things remain exactly as they are. Example: we
don't need to give saves to IG. They still die every time they get hit.
Also, if we decide to strenghten some infantry types with a low (6
or 5) save, anti-tank weapons will still get them every time (exactly
as they do now) because of the -Y minimum modifier.
So, additional rolls would be kept to a minimum (mainly in infantry
versus infantry shootings, and then only when the shooters are
armed with low-power weapons).

But the rules make a difference when we give termies, say, a 2+
save. Now you need POWERFUL anti-infantry weapons to take
them out. OTOH, even the most pitiful anti-tank weapon still gets
them most of the time, due to the minimum modifier.
Basically, we've added "resolution" to the game, which allows us to
gauge in a more precise way relative infantry strength.

Why it gives us few hassles? for the following reasons:

we have three variables to tinker with (the X multiplier, the Y
minimum modifier, and modified infantry saves) so as to make
things very similar to the current situation, except for the few cases
(extra-hard infantry) where a change is needed. E.G.: all the normal
infantry remains with no save or gets a low one (automatically
neutralized by the minimum modifier for tanks), so no buckets of
dice to roll added. Tank-versus-infantry, if the values are correctly
established, remains the same (i.e. no saves most of the time).
Also note that tank-versus-tank and infantry-versus-tank situations
automatically remain the same. Only infantry-versus-infantry is

we are NOT adding any stat. This point cannot be stressed
enough. Adding stats is BAD; it complicates and slows things, and
requires time to memorize everything anew.
The only necessary change is the designation of "hard" and "soft"
stands (weapons would automatically be of the same category of
the unit which carries them), which is extremely obvious in most of
the Epic units. The few unclear ones can be quickly given exact
consideration (and subsequent memorization). As a matter of fact,
we could go with current categories (infantry, vehicles, super-
heavies etc.) and have the designation almost instantly ready.
Of course, we'll also have to reconsider the "super-infantry", but
these units are the express purpose of the change so we should
reconsider them anyway.

As for the exact values, I find the proposed X2 multiplier more than
adequate, and I think a minimum -2 modifier would work well

So, what do you think?

Luca Lettieri
Received on Tue Dec 14 1999 - 20:49:04 UTC

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