Hi!
LOL, I'll believe it so long as you don't tell anyone else.
I am of two minds to include such a mechanic since it increases die
rolls and lengthens the fire combat resolution. On the other hand it
does add a good level of uncertainty since hitting and damaging are
harder to anticipate.
As I look as some of my original notes there ware several ideas this
reminds me of that I discarded, but perhaps deserve more attention:
I Opposed rolls system
Of course this one was inspired by DSII with the usual twists. The
accuracy stat would not be a "to hit" number but a bonus. Armies like IG
would have an accuracy of zero while SM would have +1. Low trained
troops like PDF would get -1 and Necron would get +2. The number
translates to a bonus on the d10 to see if you hit.
Opposing this roll is another d10 with an evasion stat. Like the
accuracy stat, it is a bonus to the d10 roll. Instead of using different
polyhedral dice like DSII does, I will use a bonus or penalty. These go
from -3 (for titans) to +3 (for fast jetbike type units).
Example: A necron tank with accuracy +2 fires at an eldar jetbike with
evasion +3.
The Necron player rolls a 5 + 2 (accuracy bonus) = 7. The eldar player
also rolls a 5 + 3 (evasion bonus) = 8. Since the evasion roll was
higher the shot is averted. Had the Necron player rolled higher (or
equal to) the eldar players roll the model would have been hit.
The armor/penetration scheme would be similar.
Units have an armor bonus stat and weapons have a penetration bonus and
are also resolved as an opposed roll. Some infantry would have a
negative armor stat which translates to a penalty on the die roll. This
make it's really easy to distinguish units with better/poorer armor. The
average would SM armor with no penalty or bonus, IG would have -1 or -2
to their armor. Tanks and such get positive bonuses.
Weapons work the same. Standard weapons get no modifier, but powerful
armor piercing weapons get a high positive bonus.
Die rolling is DECREASED as compared to the current method. Remember
that in opposed rolls they occur simultaneously so actual time involved
is less. Also eliminating multiple penetration dice also accomplishes
this.
Also I'm a big believer in player interaction. I like mechanics where
the player "feels" he can do something for his units. In this mechanic
players can "avoid" damage by rolling of with the opponent. It also
makes combat uncertain and surprising.
Don't ask me why I went with the other system, I guess I wanted
something really different, but that's not always best.
As you can see Heresy will undergo yet another transformation, but
that's the point!
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: jyrki.saari_at_... [mailto:jyrki.saari@...]
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:49 AM
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] A Heresy II suggestion
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Peter Ramos [mailto:primarch_at_...]
> Sent: 07. June 2002 14:44
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] A Heresy II suggestion
>
>
> Hi!
>
> You have just described how it works in DSII, which is a VERY good
> mechanic.
Rats! Now nobody will believe I came up with it all by myself :(
> I decided that I'll try to reduce as many die rolls as
> possible and came up with some solutions. It will take some
> time to get
> them all in but I'll list a summary with them.
>
> Thanks for the help!
>
Even if it wasn't of any help this time. :)
> Peter
>
Jyrki Saari
-There is no such thing as free lunch because eating takes time and time
is money.
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Received on Fri Jun 07 2002 - 12:25:50 UTC