That is why I say 20D, give a Titan a 20caf when fighting infantry modify
this by the number of units that are attacking it.
EXAMPLE ( Tian 20 CAF 2 squads attack it 10 men so 10-20=10 the Titan needs
to roll 10 or less on 20D)
----- Original Message -----
From: Kelvin <kx.henderson_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Titan Close Combat
> 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/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
_____________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Received on Thu Apr 13 2000 - 23:07:29 UTC