Re: RE: [NetEpic ML] Core rules Deep Reading

From: Jarreas Underwood <jarreas_at_...>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:55:55 -0500 (EST)

>I'd allow ONLY engineers to do that. Buildings can quite easily withstand
several tank main gun rounds with their structural integrity not
compromised, the only effect being a large hole on the wall. I can see engineers,
with specialized demolition charges AND the training to know where to place
them, to be able to bring down buildings but regular infantry would need a
truckload of grenades and a lot of luck to bring down a large building.

Lots of luck = a roll of less than 2 on 2d6. Sound about right? That's what regular infantry needs to damage a fortification. They need a 2 or 3 to damage a standard building, which is only a 1-in-12 chance. I don't want to have infantry able to breeze their way through buildings, but I don't want it flatly impossable either. I think a 1-in-12 chance is ok.

Yes, if a tank shoots at a building it'll make a few holes. If it engages in Close Combat it also rams the supporting walls - there is a chance the building falls on you and that's reflected in the effect if you fail the Close Combat.

The arguement that allowing infantry to damage buildings would eliminate the need for Engineers. Infantry have 1-in-12, Engineers damage buildings on a 4+ and don't die if they fail - that's the difference.
-Yar


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
\~
 |~ . o o . :;: () -0- o o .
 |~ ^
/~ |
         You are here. Wouldn't you rather be out there? -->
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Received on Mon Mar 24 2003 - 13:55:55 UTC