[NetEpic ML] Re: Let the Revision begin!!

From: Brian Evans <brian.a.evans_at_...>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 00:52:35 -0500

How many Heavy Weapons do not have an anti-infantry mode? The only one that
I can think of is the LasCannon and its variants (darklance, brightlance).

Missile Launchers have Frag Missiles, Plasma Missiles, etc.
AutoCannons already shoot out a slew of rounds at the enemy
Large Plasma Weapons use a template anyway, so it is reasonable to treat
them like area effect weapons when infantry are the target.
Heavy Bolters are already like machine guns, plus they have HellFire rounds
Big bore Tank guns (Battle Cannons) have HEAT, HE, MPAT shells that they can
use when faced with infantry.
Volcano Cannons shoot such a powerful blast of energy it most likely
incinerates anything near the impact point.

This also goes back to how much time is represented in an Epic turn. If my
Marine LasCannon gets 4-5 shots in an Epic turn, you probably have 3 dead
infantrymen. These casualties would probably make a five man squad
ineffective on the battlefield. With a weapon as powerful as a LasCannon,
it probably doesn't matter if you are hiding behind a wall, etc., the
LasCannon will probably still retain its killing power after vaporizing the

Basically, we have people proposing that we add weapon classifications to
the game, or multiple saving throws, etc: For a single weapon! Epic has a
long history of adding special rules and/or modifications to individual
units, etc. If we have to differentiate between LasCannons and all other
Heavy Weapons, it would be much preferable to just say LasCannons are -1 to
hit infantry, instead of adding a bunch of useless stats to the game.

In conclusion, almost every weapon has an anti-infantry mode, and modifying
the game for this single weapon system, seems like wasted effort. If
LasCannons are the only weapon this applies to, I will probably not remember
the modifiers, extra stats., or the different weapons classifications.

Brian A. Evans

----- Original Message -----
From: Weasel Fierce <septimus__at_...>
To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 2:14 AM
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: Let the Revision begin!!

> >From: "Brian Evans" <brian.a.evans_at_...>
> >Reply-To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> >To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
> >Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: Let the Revision begin!!
> >Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 03:04:34 -0500
> >
> >
> >
> >Issue #1
> >
> >Infantry saves
> >
> >A. Leave as is
> >
> >* Only extraordinary troop should have a save
> I think perhaps that the question should not be saving throws but
> survivability. Adding a tohit modifier in the infantrys advantage, would
> show quite nicely that hitting a 5 man squad properly with an anti-tank
> is difficult, but they are history if you do
> ______________________________________________________
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Want to send money instantly to anyone, anywhere, anytime?
> You can today at X.com - and we'll give you $20 to try it! Sign
> up today at X.com. It's quick, free, & there's no obligation!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/332/2/_/7255/_/945674088
> -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
> -- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/netepic/?m=1
Received on Wed Dec 22 1999 - 05:52:35 UTC

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