Re: [NetEpic ML] Titan Close Combat

From: Kelvin <kx.henderson_at_...>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:06:20 +1000

At 11:49 PM 4/12/00 +0000, Jim Barr wrote:
><snips lots of cool Titan combat ideas from Warprat, Peter, and
>others>
>
> Personally, I like simpler solutions closer to the baseline CC
>system...adding up stands and figuring out a group CAF sounds
>suspiciously like another <EPIC> system set in the <40K>
>universe...:)

Which, while I hated the game, had its good points too. I really like the
sound of the "group CAF" rule as it represents what I think really happens
when infantry make a do-or-die charge at the Titan. They all hit at once
trying deperately to swarm the thing, hence the "group" effect. +1 for
each 'normal' infantry that attack with Elites giving their full CAF bonus
would be just perfect I think. If the Infantry win the assault, they can
make a basic save or die. If they lose, the Titan creams them anyhow. I
really, really like this suggestion. It gives Titans some power over the
infantry without being invulnerable to them. Plus as Peter pointed out,
the attacker is in a lose-lose situation, so they must make a tough
tactical choice as to how much they want to take that Titan down.

> I like the "skip" system (add a d6 every 2 or 3 stands), or we
>could just double all Titan CAFs and leave it at that. It'll take a
>lot of Beastmen to wade through 20-30 pts of CAF...plus 2d6! So, a
>Titan with old CAF 14, new CAF 28 plus average roll of 7 (total 35)
>will crush the first 8 average opponents, and tie with the 9th,
>assuming 0 CAF attackers and average rolls.

Nah. This gets too much into the old number-crunching. People will only
attack with the bare minimum they can to get the maximum effect while the
group model forces the player to throw in everything he can to try and take
it out and then there are still no guarentees.

> Titans should be impressive, but they shouldn't be all-powerful,
>IMHO. The "combined arms" feel is good - Titans are useful, but need
>smaller units to screen them from the jackals, infantry is cheap and
>good at advancing & holding ground, but will wither in firefights
>with vehicles/titans, etc. In larger forces, Titans are a useful
>part of an army, but I rarely leave it on its own. If I find myself
>leaving a lone titan to hold a flank, that's my cue to buy a company
>of something else instead...

I agree. Titans shouldn't be all powerful, but there are plenty of ways to
take a Titan down. Massed-firepower, Heavy and Super-heavy weapons, other
Titans/Praetorians plus certain specialist weapons. An infantry assault
should be a last-ditch effort to take a Titan down. Under the old rules,
it was actually the easiest way to do it. With the "+1D6 per 3 stands"
rules, its too number-crunchy while the "group CAF" means that if you throw
in enough lowly infatry, you COULD take it down. Use your more expensive
elite infantry to hit it and your chances improve, but there goes your
expensive specialists in all likelihood. I think the "group CAF" model
just has the right feel to it.


-Kelvin....

============================================
         "Of course I'm paranoid!
       Everyone's trying to kill me."
============================================
Received on Thu Apr 13 2000 - 01:06:20 UTC