Re: [NetEpic ML] Some thing about V5

From: cibernyam <cibernyam_at_...>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 12:52:06 +0200

> > I think Striking Scorpions and Howling
> > Banshee are too mighty in close combat. +6 is
> > too much. +3 would be more rigth. With a
> > laspistol (25 cm, 5+).
>
> Not compared to other CC troops. Banshees and Scorpions are CC
> masters. The +6 is fine when you look at their cost.

I agree, their CAF is OK. We can discuss if SM have low CAF (which I don't
think so), but still Termies have +6 and CC termies (which are almost
unstoppable in CC in WH40K) have +8 (note that there is no ST in CC, the
armour is accounted in the CAF). Note also that SM have good CC abilities
but against Aspect warriors thier strength is (or should be) higher numbers
and firepower. CC quality factor is (or should be) on the eldar side. Note
also that the Chain-and-ball Rhinos commented below are the perfect
complement to give the extra D6 in the right moment.

> > IMPERIAL SPACE MARINES
> >
> > I don't understand why the more polyvalent
> > troops are allways dressed with theirs rhinos !
> > It's a real handicap in full of grounds
> > like jungle, ruined city, mountain...
> > It's allways an handicap for assault marines.
> > Assault marines are equiped with jetpack to advance
> > unimpeded. But rhinos are like a chain-and-ball
> > punishment ! :o(
>
> IMHO marines need all the punishment they get ;-). I agree though. A
> standard Marine chapter should have mechanised and nonmechanised versions
> of each company/detachment.

3+1 reasons why rhinos do "dress" with SM:

- Fast (You want your slow troops to be deployed fast. You want your fast
troops to be deployed faster. Few land transports go faster than 50 cm in
charge)
- Cheap (Are there any transport cheaper than Rhinos? And these ones come
with Morale rating 2+!)
- Expendable (The perfect companion of an assault stand (beside another
assault stand) is a Rhino. To fight first against any foe, die and give an
extra D6 to your assault stand raising the average CAF in +3.5. Thus, you
get an extra +3.5 CAF for a combat for three stands).
- Versatile (IIRC from NetEpic 4.1 it is possible to give separate orders to
troops and transports from the same detachment and coherency may not be
observed between transport and troops). This is quite useful also with
termies and Land Raiders. This means you can also start with your assault
troops outside their transports and roam freely. Rhinos have A LOT of
tactical uses, just experiment :-)

>
> > I think that SM would be able to have
> > better fire skill. Like 4+.
>
> Nope. Gods no. SM are already fantastic. Infantry small arms have a 5+
> to hit across the board and it takes a special exception to move it down
to
> 4+. Only truly elite troops should have a 4+.

Well, the truth is that NetEpic does not care too much about the fire
ability of the shooter. Thus, a bolter is equally deadly in the hands of an
ork and in the hands of a SM. Is the firing ability so important?

In WH40k (The last edition I read) the difference between an ork (and the
most of other regular troops) an a SM is usually 1 point (Firing Ability 3
vs 4 IIRC)
This gives an extra 16% chance to hit in the "to hit" roll.
Then you had a "damage roll" which depends solely on weapon power vs target
toughness.
Finally you get a "save" roll.

This procedure is simplified in SM2/NetEpic into two rolls: to hit and save.
Hence, the to hit in NetEpic represents both "to hit" roll and "damage"
roll.

How would affect an increase of 1 point in the firing ability to the "to
hit/damage" roll? Well, aprox. 8% chance extra. This is only half a point in
a 6 sided dice.

In the other hand, the toughness of the target is not taken into account and
thus, the "to hit/damage" roll in NetEpic is the same against a Land Raider
and against a bunch of gretchin. Indeed, IIRC it was not possible to destroy
a Land Raider with bolter fire in WH40k. But you can in NetEpic because
there is no toughness/armor value taken into account.

Hence, a slight increase in firing ability is not so significant in the
NetEpic "tohit" roll because this is overcompensated by the lack of a
toughness value. Which brings:

>
> > In SM2/TL, I concede a +1 bonus against
> > infantery for all anti-personnel weapon like
> > bolter, storm bolter & co... To give infantery
> > back the like, I add a modifier to fire against
> > it equal to TSM.
>
> I have no idea what you are suggesting here. Could you give us a working
> example?
>

The idea of a diferent "to hit" roll for infantry and armour is not new at
all. Last time discussed was with the first version of Epic:A IIRC. I still
prefer the actual system. The present system is simpler but still subtle. If
you waste volcano cannon shots to kill infantry and attack SH tanks with
bolters and other antiinfantry weapons you don't need to give different
values to the "to hit" rolls. You will lose anyway.

Albert Farr� Benet

Albert Farr�
Received on Wed May 26 2004 - 10:52:06 UTC