Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: [v5.0] Tank Shock

From: Albert Farr� Benet <cibernyam_at_...>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 20:23:51 +0100

Hi,

I don't like this idea, with a single unit you can inmobilise a lot of detachments, because if the troop stand gets out of the way(and looses orders for the turn), his detachment cannot break coherency and must keep close, thus unable to charge. Repeat again with as many detachments as possible and a whole flank of the enemy army is stopped for a turn with one or two units. When finished, put the cheese back in the fridge for next sunday.

If we are for some kind of rule of this, I'd just make that units charging can ignore closer units if they are two pinning class lower. If you're charging with a Stormhammer you won't stop fighting cultist troop stands when you can reach an already- moved greater daemon just behind. Just move through them. Lower pinning class units are (usually) wiser enough to get out of the way. I would only allow "killing runs" to units with deathrollers (or simillar) and tunnellers

I do agree, though, that units on the way move aside thus leaving a "free corridor" for units following the bigger unit to break enemy lines. Still I wouldn't make them loose the turn.

Albert.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: AntiChrist
  To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 6:14 PM
  Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: [v5.0] Tank Shock


  I Agree all the way... 5 guardians cannot stop a Land Raider!
  Perhaps, it must be toned down... some ideas that comes to my mind:

  - Give this ability only to well-armoured units (3+ save or better)

  - Tank-shock may only be done on Charge orders

  - Give the tank-shocked unit the option of get out the way instead of
  suffering the tank-shock (perhaps it must forfeit its orders for the
  turn doing so...).

  - Diversify tank-shock from close combat: instead of making a round
  of close combat, the infantry may choose to make an Heroic attack (as
  40k)! The stand stands still (:P) and automatically hits the vehicle
  with his ranged weapon (maybe with the side armor modifier, due to
  the point-blank range): if the vehicle survives, the stand is
  squashed under the tracks, otherwise the stand dies and the vehicle
  continues unscathed.

  So it may works this way: I declare my Land Raider (armoured, so
  armor at least 3+) on Charge orders to tank-shock your Guardian stand
  (maybe in order to charge a model further away). You have 2 options:
  get out of the way (making the Guardian stand unable to move or shoot
  that turn, and losing its ZC) or make an Heroic attack, automatically
  hitting the Land Raider which must save at -1 TSM.

  --- In netepic_at_y..., <jarreas_at_m...> wrote:
> In the various musings on how to write up animosity between Greater
  Daemons,
> it occurred to me that a clever player could move his infantry in
  such a way
> to prevent his Greater Daemons from moving, and thus prevent them
  from killing
> each other. The concept of "getting in the way of a Charging
  Greater Daemon"
> isn't something I consider particularly intelligent - or
  survivable, for that
> matter.
>
> So the concept of crushing your enemy arises - can a tank roll over
  infantry,
> or can the collective small-arms fire from a Gretchin Squad halt a
  Charging
> Warlord Titan in it's path? You see the problem, I hope.
>
> How about:
> If you're two or more levels above an opponent on the pinning table
  (like
> tanks to infantry, and Titans to tanks) you can Tank-Shock.
>
> This is an overrun attack and allows you to try and kill the unit
  you're
> moving over - roll an immediate round of Close Combat. If you win
  you can keep
> moving. If you lose you're dead and don't have to worry about it.
>
> Things like multiple attacker bonus dice, using the 15-cm bolters
  and other
> questions remain, but what's general opinion, and how do people
  handle this?
> -Yar


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Received on Tue Dec 03 2002 - 19:23:51 UTC