Nope....
Haven't had the time yet.
Yes, +2 is a lot. But who would really be able to put down a jetfighter
with handguns..... (And if I remember corectly one of the Eldar aspect
warriors migth fire AA at a -1 penalty !?!)
The sqats yes. In my experience the little boggers will survive just
anything you put against them. They are Epics equivalent of cockroaches.
Never breaking, never fleeing the battlefield..... With warmachines of
imence power at a minimum cost.... I belive that if i where to stomp one
berserker stand with my food, I'd only hurt myself :)
We have a sort of gentlemans agreement, not to use flyers if the other side
does not have them. I know that the orks once used a detachment of
Fightabombaz agaisnt the squats. I dont think they made that much of an
impact on the result of that particular game. When you use flyers as we do,
they do not tend to dominate the games that much. However, we have not been
using that many flyers in our games.
Nils
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warprat [SMTP:warprat_at_...]
> Sent: 23. februar 2000 11:51
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: Revision Issue: Titans
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Shop the web for great deals. Save on Computers,
> electronics, Home furnishings and more.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/1559/2/_/7255/_/951304079/
>
> -- Create a poll/survey for your group!
> -- http://www.egroups.com/vote?listname=netepic&m=1
>
Received on Wed Feb 23 2000 - 11:44:33 UTC