[NetEpic ML] Re: Rules Proposition X

From: Weasel Fierce <septimus__at_...>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:55:29 GMT

>From: "Daniel Wiebell" <dwiebell_at_...>
>Reply-To: netepic_at_egroups.com
>To: netepic_at_egroups.com
>Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: Rules Proposition X
>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
>>save.
>
>>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?

DOnt remember the exact number but quite a load. About half the total votes
at least.

I would highly recommend that something is done to avoid making lascannon
etc. too powerfull against infantrty.

Perhaps reduce their accuracy and then introduce a +1 modifier to hit tanks.
Or just keep em and make infantry targets -1 to hit
______________________________________________________
Received on Thu Dec 16 1999 - 08:55:29 UTC