Hi!
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.
Advantages:
Pretty simple to remember, save modifier=dead infantry, no save modifier=
save.
No need to change most weapon modifiers, no extra special rules
Disadvantage:
Infantry saves need to be done and a look over for weapon modifiers
Let me know what you think.
Peter
----- 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
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.
>
> >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
>
> ______________________________________________________
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> WE'RE LACKING SOMETHING
> 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