Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: Reality Check

From: Peter Ramos <pramos2_at_...>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:32:26 -0500

Hi!

Hehe, this is what I live by. No matter how good intentioned you are with a
rule someone always abuses it, that's why we have to try to get some rules
that are as abuse proof as possible.

Look guys, the problem with the standard close combat system as with most GW
made mechanics is that it works for some units well and sucks for others.
The system is very titan unfriendly, because a many stands get a HUGE
advantage over one unit. that is well and good, but when that ONE unit is a
titan it blows when it can be taken out by ANY massed unit.

That's the problem, ANY unit can. If the system was that only termies or
specialist combat troops could successfully harm titans people could live
with it, but that's not the reality. I understand you cant equate a certain
cost of troops to assault effectiveness with a titan, but come on! Does
everyone think that 100-200 points of expendable troops should take out a
titan every time, without fail or risk? Or course not.

Tinkering with the close combat scheme, whether it be CAF change or more d6
is not going to change the final outcome, because the problem IS the system.

Up to now either the current defense system or Darius rules really address
the issue, because it permits the titan to cut down the odds BEFORE close
combat ensues.

The obvious advantage of Darius rule is that it uses the standard rules
after a minor modification. I also like the modifier rule at half CAF, it
avoids really high modifiers, but validates elite class troops.

I'd add that elites survives on a 4+ and expand the elite classification to
include most marines and combat specialists from most armies.

Also we must remember that a morale check is required before such a feat.

Let do the numbers with these rules:

The infamous 10 IG swarm or good friend the reaver. The reavers defense
systems open up on average 2 out of 6 will live so about 3 stands live. The
3 remaining IG stands get pulverized.

Our mighty marines take a whack at it. half of them die due to the titan
defense force the remaining 4 stands of marines face a desperate task the
last stand has about a 50% probability to inflict one hit. Not great but
they have a chance where IG have none

The termies come in and half fall to the defenses the remaining ones have a
close chance to inflict 2 hits and better than average to hit once. With
their higher CAF the hit will most likely cause damage.

Conclusion: NO one unit of anything guarantees the titans demise, better
troops can strive for one hit. MORE units of better troops will most likely
bring it down but this has cost the assaulting player (likely half of his
forces) many VP's to accomplish.

In the end, swarms of cheap infantry accomplish nothing, as they should,
they don't have the motivation or guts to do it. Better troops have a
chance, that is slim and increases with more help, but still costs a lot to
do and is a gamble.

I'd let players swarm the base since this combination of rules already kills
a lot of infantry.

After much thought I have made up my mind, I like these rules, they
accomplish what I would like them to.

Well, now its up to all of you to talk more about all this and decide what
you most prefer.

Peter

P.S. By the way, although discussions have been civil, lets keep the
potentially inflammatory comments down to a minimum so as to insure peace on
the list. Otherwise, I will let the lists resident evil demon Tzeentch (Ken)
gobble you up and spit you out <grin>

Peter

> Look. All i'm trying to do is keep people honest... no matter what
> rule we come up with someone is going to do his best to find a
> loophole to exploit it... that's the way these things seem to work.
> I admit that I like to use titans... they're way more fun to paint
> than massed infantry and they look better on the table... but the way
> the rules are now and in Titan Legions you're at a disadvantage if
> you
> take titans... you get more firepower and better survivability out
> of
> tanks... if that's so then what is the point of even including them
> in
> the game in the first place??
>
> Mike
Received on Mon Apr 17 2000 - 23:32:26 UTC