Re: [NetEpic ML] Titan Close Combat

From: Peter Ramos <pramos2_at_...>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:49:37 -0500

Hi!

Ah, thanks for clearing this up, makes sense now.

Peter


>Hi Jyrki,
>
>I agree, this is unreasonable!
>
>
>If you review my proposal, you might notice that only ONE unit is used
>to LEAD the attack, this unit would get it's full CAF.. The other
>Terminators would only add +1 CAF each. So +8 CAF, total. The Termies
>might want some Cannon Fodder back up!
>
>The Lead Unit idea is important, because it gives the attacking
>infantry/vehicles a reason to use high power units, not JUST cannon
>fodder.
>
>
>I like the idea of an unmodified save! The Terminators, in the above
>example would survive the fight on a 5+, win or lose. Marines have
>extra training, so this works well, I think. Other infantry, with
>saves, would get this as well.
>
>Also, unless the Elite units are used in other rules, I would suggest
>removing them, to simplify things.
>
>
>In considering various alternatives, I eventually discarded the idea of
>simply increasing the titan CAF. The titans are ballanced against each
>other, pretorians, knights, and Supers.
>
>It is much easier to simply reduce the infantry/normal vehicles CAF.
>
>
>Also, you might note, that if Supers+ are used along with infantry. You
>can resolve those other combats, possibly killing the titan, and not
>have to use the waiting infantry swarm at all.
>
>Hits are resolved, immediatly, as they happen.
>
>
>I would suggest using the titan base, and not the legs, because it's
>easier on the minis. Also, when I swarm a titan, I want to do it in
>LARGE numbers!
>
>
>
>Karlsen Rune wrote:
>>
>> What about the titans weaponry? Vehicles with bolters are able
>> to fire at charging inf regardless if they're on FF or AF.
Shouldn't
>> Titans be able to use their non-barrage weapons at charging
>> inf?
>
>
>Good idea, Rune! If a titan is on First Fire, why not. But they should
>not be required to, unless they are pinned by that unit. Hey, now they
>follow the regular rules again!
>
>
>What does everyone else think?
>
>Warprat ;)
Received on Thu Apr 13 2000 - 14:49:37 UTC