Hello,
With all the proposed changes to the rules and new
units, Net Epic 5.0 is going to look nothing at all
like 4.0. Change is a good a thing but it seems to me
that the rush to change drastically is too fast. New
units and rules getting voted on that haven't been
play tested yet are given optional or even core
status. Reworking of points for units. It is all
becoming too much. Personally I would rather see rules
for playing a campaign scenario and battle ideas not
the choice for AT/AP or should we standardize the
weapons and give either a -1 or a -3 TSM. It looks
like the game I have been playing for 10 years will
change so much that I won't recognize it.
Your answer to the AP/AT question is simply this: If
it has no TSM modifier it is AP and if it does it is
AT. You can stipulate a rule that armored vehicle
units can only be affected by weapons with a -1 TSM or
they gain a +1 to their Armor Save from weapons with a
0 TSM. We already do this with titans and void
shields. As for barrages, some of them are powerful
enough to damage vehicles and thus have both AP/AT
ability.
Happy with 4.0
Darius
--- Weasel Fierce <weasel_fierce_at_...> wrote:
>
>
>
> >I've been trying to come up with a way to
> differentiate Anti-Personnel and
> >Anti-Tank weapons, without changing any game
> mechanics. How about this:
> >
> >Call it AP: Weapons with a 0 or -1 TSM
> >
> >Call it AT: Weapons with -3 or more TSM
> >
>
> Im not sure I would like to see every -2 gun changed
> to -1 or -3.
>
> Land raiders with -3 tsm ?
>
>
>
>
>
> Weasel
>
>
> How many lives will be taken today?
> How many times will we just look away?
>
> Pennywise - One voice
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print
> your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
Received on Fri May 31 2002 - 11:08:44 UTC