[NetEpic ML] Re: Rules Proposition X

From: Peter Ramos <pramos2_at_...>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 19:48:58 -0600


I have watched the infamtry save issue with much interest. It is clear
something needs to be done but not to complex. I propose an idea that was
already thrown out:

Infantry will get saves depending on how tough we think they should be, any
time a infantry unit get hits with a unit with a save modifier (any
modifier) the infantry gets NO SAVE and is eliminated just like now.

When the infantry unit is hit by a weapon without a modifier it gets a save.

Units with heavy armor or fields (termies, etc.) get an asterisk besides
their armor save meaning when hit by weapon with a saving throw modifiers
they get a 5+ save (unmodifyable). This leaves th exact protection abstract
while acknowledging it.

Pretty simple to remember, save modifier=dead infantry, no save modifier=
No need to change most weapon modifiers, no extra special rules

Infantry saves need to be done and a look over for weapon modifiers

Let me know what you think.

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Wiebell <dwiebell_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 1999 10:25 PM
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: Rules Proposition X

> 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.
> 2. The proposition makes anti-tank weapons unbelievably powerful. If a
> lascannon gets its save mod against armoured targets, and twice its save
> 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
> (if we are going with the soft/hard target system)? That way you would
> to shoot at them with anti-tank weapons to hurt them. That should toughen
> them up a bit.
> >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 Wed Dec 15 1999 - 01:48:58 UTC

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