RE: [NetEpic ML] Comments on Weasel's stuff

From: <jyrki.saari_at_...>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 09:36:11 +0300

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EXT Weasel Fierce [mailto:septimus__at_...]
> Sent: 02. June 2000 17:36
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Comments on Weasel's stuff
>
>
>
> >Ok Weasel, here goes my 2FIM. Since I made my own version of
> the PDF I may
> >be somewhat biased.
> >
>
> i forgive you ;)
>

Good ;)

> >Rocket unit: are these some kind of bazooka troops? In that
> case the range
> >is too long; 25 or 35 at most. Would be good support cards.
>
> That is right. A range of 35 would be fair. After all, they
> should have
> longe rrange than pistols
>

35 cm is fine.

[snip]
> >Medium/heavy tank: Leman Russ fills this place nicely. As
> the MBT of the
> >Imperium it is pretty much omnipresent.
> >
>
> Perhaps. My reasoning was that the PDF would get all matter
> of old outdated
> stuff, some of it scratch build from other tanks etc.
>
> Thus they would not have any classification of vehicles but
> rather a generic
> medium tank etc.
>
> You might be right though
>

I thought about this too. How about keeping the Leman Russ as a medium tank
and a company card, and the Heavy Tank as a support card. Add one
autocannon, a couple of bolters and raise the CAF to +2 so it's worth
having. Maybe give it a fancy name such as "Gladius" or something else? The
flame tank should have 5+ to hit and 15cm move since it shouldn't compare
very favorably with Hellhound.

[snip]
> propably. THough as I made it, it would allow people to use
> WW2 jeep models
>

Caome to think of it, you are right. It would allow to use jeeps/hummers.
Another thing is that bikes are kind of specialist troops... Yep. Let's
replace bikes with the recon vehicle.

[snip]
> >Then the Arbites. As the Adeptus arbites is a law
> enforcement unit I don't
> >see them having a field army. However, they would be a nice
> addition to the
> >PDF armylist since they probably are present in every world
> with a decent
> >tech level. The combat infantry is about equivalent of my
> vision of regular
> >Judges with the shock infantry being the SWAT teams. I think
> the Judges
> >(combat infantry) should be the only company card they get
> with SWAT teams
> >(shock infantry) being support cards.
> >
>
> The 4oK2 Codex Imperialis actually states that they are
> equipped to wage a
> minor war. And if a planet is assaulted, they would
> definately pitch in to
> help defend it.
>

Didn't know that, but it is logical. A combined law enforcement and counter
insurgency force. But I still think they would go to PDF if they needed some
regular troops and use Judges whenever possible.

> YOu might be right about the company card.
>
> >There would be room for a sniper in a law enforcement force
> IMO, stats and
> >rules equvalent to Ratlings except for a CAF of +1 and to
> hit roll of 4+.
> >
>
> Kewl idea!
>

Thanks :)

[snip]
> I think the bombs are too hefty, the legionaires are kewl
>

How would you tone the bombs? I think the requirement that they win a CC
makes them too ineffective; they don't need to fight, just explode. In the
old 40K one human bomb had a blast radius of 1,5" and threw a subsidiary
blast of 2" to a random direction. Considering there are 5 of them in a
stand I think the barrage template is justified considering there rarely
will be more than 2 models in the area. As for the no coherency rule I think
individual squads would be given different objectives anyway and not used as
a platoon, if there even IS such a thing as a human bomb platoon.

>
> >BTW; I saw the header for the storm troopers, I too think
> they should be
> >added to the IG list. Maybe a company strength special card.
> >
> >Phew! this became longer than I thought.
>
> Will do so, and propably an addition for catachans too.
>
>
> THanks for the feedback :)

You are welcome. I really liked some of the units you made and the Arbites
especially were nice. What do you say if we combine the lists by adding
units you created to the list I made? I could do the editing.

Jyrki Saari

[snip]
Received on Mon Jun 05 2000 - 06:36:11 UTC