[NetEpic ML] Re: Rules Proposition X

From: Daniel Wiebell <dwiebell_at_...>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 19:30:08 PST

Hi guys

>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.

This is nice and simple, but like the other ideas it still creates an
effectiveness gap between anti tank and infantry weapons. It makes anti-tank
weapons too much better than no save mod weapons, point for point. And it
still doesn't address how easily anti-tank weapons take out squads.

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

>Perhaps instead of weapons that have a save modifier, we can
>designate weapons AP (armour piercing) and that infantry units hit >with AP
>weapons die with no save. This way we avoid having to revamp >all the
>curent save modifiers but can designate the weapons that will >scrap
>infantry easily and quickly without too much extra baggage. >(eg- I think
>that Devastators should not ignore infantry saves.)

No, if we do use Peter's idea, I think that anything with a save modifier
should kill infantry. After all, devastators use a mix of lascannons,
autocannons, heavy bolters, heavy plasma guns and missile launchers, none of
which would allow most troops a save in W40K.

Hey WeaselFierce, did you have a question on that vote sheet for the
hard/soft attack system? If so how many votes did it get?

And Peter, did you get that huge list of errors and suggestions I sent you a
few weeks back?

Anyways, catch you guys later.

Received on Wed Dec 15 1999 - 03:30:08 UTC

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