hi, Pete
after scanning my 1x10'''' emails, i am overcome by the number of
whiners out there. Infantry dont get a save or need one. if they did
they would be even more powerful then tanks, or super heavies. The game
i believe is about how you use and lose your forces. Not if you get a
chance to save them with dumb luck. As many of us know the Epic system is
for huge battles and dead units may not be dead, just out of commision.
to give a save to a unit that doesn't get one completely changes how the
game works. I play Squats, Marines and Orks, and any one of them would
love a free saving throw. I mean ca'mon, think( or have nightmares) about
squat infantry that will rise from the ground after you've gone to the
trouble of mowing them down. I can see a desire for such a thing, but i
see it a an unneccessary waste of time. Remember, just because you can do
something doesn't always mean you should.
damian
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Ramos <pramos2_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 7:48 PM
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: Rules Proposition X
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get 75% Off Our Best Selling Health and Wellness Books!
> SelfCare.com has everything you need to take care of you and your family,
> plus spend $40 or more and your shipping is free!
> http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1824
>
>
>
> -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
> -- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=netepic&m=1
>
>
>
Received on Thu Dec 16 1999 - 01:25:06 UTC