Hi!
Hehe, many good ideas! Again, while other have a lot of merit the one put
forth by Warprat has the most appeal to all at this point. Its main
attractive being ONE roll, which none of the other suggestions can boast.
The elite caviat to this rule is and excellent one too. It make them
valuable. As mentioned the non-titan attacker get their save, which is kinda
nice, because marines doing this have a better chance of suvival than IG for
example, since the marines could save, the IG could not.
I see few problems with this ruling, it uses standard rules without
exceptions or changing stats. All others require a stat change or too much
accounting.
Hehe, i think its easy to see how the vote will go on this one!
Peter
> 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."
> ============================================
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1.6 Million Digital Images!
> Download one Today from Corbis.com
> http://click.egroups.com/1/3356/3/_/7255/_/955588270/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Received on Thu Apr 13 2000 - 01:24:13 UTC