Have you tried Peters new proposed flyer rules?
I think they are a GREAT improvement over the current NetEpic flyer
rules. But, I do miss some of the aspects of the old Games Workshop
flyer rules. Like, high and low elevation, and troops being able to
fire at flyers. A -2 penalty, seems like an awfull lot, but my
experience with flyers is very limited.
How do Squats fare, not having any true flyers?
Warprat ;)
nils.saugen_at_... wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> No I don't think they need to be limithed further.
>
> The limited range of the missile already makes them quite unmanouverable.
> And the fact that they may be shot down, makes it quite unsafe to go
> cruising around the tabletop for too long a time. The best tactic would be
> to go straight ahead and deliver the goods as fast as possible.
>
> As I said yesterday our little gaming group has been working on our own
> flyer rules. We use the flyers pretty much like any other unit. We also
> allow all units with weapons of ranges equalt to or lesser than 75cm to
> shoot at flyers at a -2 penalty.
>
> I think that the AA guns are the only units with good enogh tracking and
> targeting systems to shoot down a small missile like the deathstrike. And
> that even they have to do it at a -2 penalty. Otherwise I do belive that I
> have delivered my last deathstrike.
>
> Nils
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Warprat [SMTP:warprat_at_...]
> > Sent: 23. februar 2000 10:50
> > To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> > Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: Revision Issue: Titans
> >
> > Hi Nils!
> >
> > After thinking about it, I have to agree that I like your solution the
> > best. It is a good revision for the NetEpic rules, in my opinion.
> >
> > Do you think that Deathstrike Batteries need to be limited in some
> > manner?
> >
> > Also, should AA guns still take a -2 penalty to hit? What is your
> > opinion about letting infantry be able to target flyers?
> >
> > Thanks Nils!
> >
> > Warprat ;)
> >
> >
> >
> > nils.saugen_at_... wrote:
> >
> > I know, I checked the old rules this morning myself. I think we'll stick
> > to the rules I described yesterday. (Treating the missile as a flyer)
> > Anyway, I prefer to take the barrage warhead.
> >
> > (snip)
> > We have always regarded the Deathstrike missile as a cruise missile
> > much like modern day tomahawks. So I've always regarded it as a small
> > flyer. We use our own rules for flyers (They are placed on the tabletop
> > as any other units and has some manuverability restrictions. They must
> > move between half and full movement, making no more than two turns each
> > round with at least 10 cm between the turns and with a maximum turn of
> > 90 degrees (no singel turn above 45 degrees)) These are the rules by
> > wich the deatstrikes move.
> >
> > So if I'm able to backstab a titan, using the above manuverability
> > rules with the limited movement of the deathstrike missiles. I would
> > very well say that my opponent deserved a warpmissile in the back.
> > Furthermore it does not say in the rules for the deathstrike missile
> > that the launch vehicle has to have LOS to the target. It says so on
> > the description for the Titan, but then again that missile is of a
> > different nature (no movementrestrictions for instance) I regard these
> > missiles as different weapons but with the same warhead.
> > (snip)
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *** Got Questions? Get Answers. Got Answers? Get Paid. ***
> > Sign up at Infomarco.com and you can win $30,000 cash or a trip to China.
> > http://click.egroups.com/1/1251/2/_/7255/_/951300361/
> >
> > -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
> > -- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/netepic/?m=1
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *** Got Questions? Get Answers. Got Answers? Get Paid. ***
> Sign up at Infomarco.com and you can win $30,000 cash or a trip to China.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/1251/2/_/7255/_/951301929/
>
> -- Talk to your group with your own voice!
> -- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=netepic&m=1
Received on Wed Feb 23 2000 - 10:51:00 UTC