[NetEpic ML] Re: The Glory Days of SM/TL

From: Peter Ramos <pramos2_at_...>
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 10:42:07 -0600


> There were no special units created just for spotting. The only rule that
> covered spotting was: If the artillery unit fires indirectly, use the
> scatter die. That was it! Very simple.

Yes. We'll be going back to this I think.

> How so? Make the best Titan you can for the role you want it to fulfill.
> The really good weapons had limits placed on their use: One shot only
> (missiles), only one weapon may fire that turn (big plasma stuff), high
> modifiers would get few shots (usually one like the Volcano Cannon), many
> shots would have low save (Vulcan Mega Bolter). I thought that the Titan
> weapons were well balanced.

You may play in the spririt of the game, as I and others. But many do not,
and the chessy many vortex, barrage missle launcher titans abound or the
phantoms always with double pulsar. The sad fact is that with out cost rules
you just see the same thing over and over again. I would however streamline
the cost rules some. You still can fit the weapons however you see fit but
at cost. Some combos are too effective for cost. Of course if we re-evaluate
the weapons to make them reasonable perhaps we dont need a cost system no

> If you wanted a long range weapons platform, you could create one. If you
> wanted a close in brawler, go for it.

You can do that now with the cost rules, but a brawler is chaeper than a
weapons platform.

> Never liked the Barrage Missle, you were too dependant on a single die
> for your number of templates. I shy away from all or nothing weapons.
> anyone who uses the maximum coherency distance can really reduce barrage
> damage, even from many templates.

Again I admire your adherence to the spirit of the game, but many just bring
firea and forger weapons due to their high pay off.

> > > No separate Flyer phase with all the flyer sub-phases in ESM/TL.
> > > were just another unit on the battlefield, they just had high movement
> > > rates.

I'm going that way myself, simplification without stupid-fication

> What were some of the zany situations that could occur? I remember that
> was always tough to use the DoomLord and DoomWings because they had a very
> short range and were always moving. This left your fliers exposed and
> waiting to attack until the Advance phase.

Thats exactly it, flyers in mid-air? hovering during combat? Also rules
problems crop up, can you close combat them? Can jump pack troops do it? See
what I mean too many variables no explanations. We can still integrate them
into combat phase but we need to clarify many things, if they have movement
they should have really large ones (no modification for charge orders). Also
they should be able to come from table sides (if not rear). Well we'll no
doubt talk about this later.

> I like to see my painted models on the battlefield, next to other painted
> models. It rankels that with the new flyer rules, most flyers will never
> see the battlefield, they will just be on the flyer combat pad (name?).
> even put any time into painting them?

All too true and is the cause opf one of my dissatisfactions with the
current scheme, I too have many painted flyers that dont see the tabletop as
often any more. I beleive we should remedy that.

> I believe that the rule was, if you were pinned by the charging unit, you
> could only fire at the models charging you. This would force you to fire
> all of your weapons, not just the bolters, at the charging infantry unless
> you were a Super-Heavy etc.


> In netepic vehicles pretty much get free bolter shots at their attacker,
> regardless of what orders the vehicle was on and without the snapfire
> penalty. It also looks probable that vehicle bolters will soon have an
> increased chance of hitting.

This rule would be better if vehicles had reduced CAF versus infatry, we'll
have to discuss more on this.

> Yes, by the time you got to the 30th stand you would be rolling (31d6 + 0
> CAF) against the Warlord's (2d6 + 14 CAF). It is usually only possible to
> get about 6 - 8 or so infantry into close combat with a Warlord because
> Titan Legions required infantry/tanks to actually contact the Titan's legs
> instead of the base. Even the 8th Imperial Guardsmen would have only
> even chances of doing damage against the Titan. But the Guard were
> of taking some horrible damage before they got enought die against the
> Warlord's +14 CAF.

Actually if it were that costly I would mind, but on average the 7th or 8th
stand would bring it down, that made titans to vulnerable. To simplify
things I would go back to the origianl scheme (where vehicles and infantry
could engage it, BUT (and a big one) extra d6 for close combat would only be
added for every THREE stands that is after the first attacker no extra dice
until the fourth guy is reach and so on, makes it viable but extremely
costly, the cost invested to cost gained is comparable.
> Titan Legion RuleBook, page 24: "In the psychic phase models with psychic
> powers can use them to try and influence the battle."
> Titan Legion RuleBook, page 17: Order Phase
> Movement Phase
> Psychic Phase
> Combat Phase
> End Phase
Correct it did. I'd also revise the psychic rules, but there enough on the
plate for now.

Received on Sat Dec 18 1999 - 16:42:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:58:49 UTC