[NetEpic ML] Re: Rules Proposition X

From: Luca Lettieri <l.lettieri_at_...>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 01:23:26 -0800

"damian miller" <damianmille-_at_...> wrote:
> after scanning my 1x10'''' emails, i am overcome by the number of
> whiners out there.

I take exception to the previous sentence. If you want to trash
someone's idea, fair, but this does not give you the right to trash the
person expressing the idea. Let's keep this list civil, please. My 2c.

> 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.

Then explain medics, please. Frankly, I find it much more acceptable to
have heavily armoured infantry surviving hits rather than having
"mister miracle" which revives whole SQUADS after they've been
annihilated by a plasma cannon which left a 30-meter radius crater
where there were "normal" unarmoured men (like IG stands) before.

Besides which:

A) you save EVERY piece in the game (which has an armour save) by dumb
luck

B) the game balance modifications heavily depend on the save itself. A
save of 6+ won't change the outcome of any single engagement, except
where there is an extreme balance or if you're using loaded dices.

C) I've not seen any post advocating indiscriminate infantry saves;
rather, there are some proposals, mainly aimed at a very few and
specialized infantry types, for making them actually cost-effective and
successfully simulating their supposed abilities.

And now try to tell me that for general-purpose usage termies are
better than devastators. For heaven's sake... their main saving grace
are their Landraiders. So, I should field an infantry unit because
their transports are good? Spare me.


> 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.

I didn't see anyone stating out "every infantry stand of race XXX need
a save". And marines, under current NetEpic rules, DO have a save of 6+.

Anyway, just to reinstate an idea I expressed in a previous post: I
still think it's ludicrous to consider an hit from infantry weapons the
same as an hit from the weapons of a main battle tank. Infantry
(especially when genetically engineered to have double internal organs
and going around in armoured exoscheletons) could EASILY survive hits
from small weapons. Another of my 2c.

Luca Lettieri
Received on Thu Dec 16 1999 - 09:23:26 UTC