Hi Hellreich!
Well, in the past, it was't so hard. For instance, the Capitol
Imperialis had a rule which said you could place infantry on the top.
You could see the troop stands!
Later, came the Emperor class Titan. How often does anyone play with
that big boy? I've got three of them, and havn't used one once! (They
look nice in my miniatures cabinet, however.) When you do get to play
it, you HAVE to use the template. So keeping track of troops is no
extra bother.
As for other vehicles, how does one ever know the troops are inside?
The vehicle either saves, or it's destroyed. The troops either bail
out, or they don't. Exposed troops, (Those which can fire from the
transporting unit) with a saving throw probably fry, those without, fry
for sure.
Problem?
One other question though. Unless your mixing armies, when do you ever
get a chance to place Marines in a Tech Guard titan? Most of the time,
Tech Guard troops would be defending THIER titan. Maybe the Titan
Defence Companies ARE named correctly. Hardly the Close Combat monsters
you would think would be guarding an Emperor class Titan.
Warprat ;)
hellreich wrote:
>
> Yes!! but it will strip one sheild for -1 save mod can take sheild down, But
> how dose one know what troops are in the open and witch one are inside. So
> now for the detail freaks we need a new marker for troops inside a
> Titan/Preatorian and one for troops on firing platform. For simplicaty why
> not just say troops inside a Titan Preatorian are in heavy fortification and
> can be hit when sheilds are down by no cover mod type weapons.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: warprat <warprat_at_...>
> To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 10:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Imperator troops, save vs Squat rad bomb
>
> >
> > Hi Peter!
> >
> > How would a Rad Bomb be resolved?
> >
> >
> > In the rules it states that everything under the template must save at
> > -1. So how does this apply to troops being carried?
> >
> > I'm inclined to treat this, as we do any other explosion that ignores
> > cover.
> >
> > Infantry:
> > 1) Save at -1.
> >
> > Vehicles:
> > 1) Roll the best armor save of the vehicle at -1.
> > 2) If the troops bail out, they save at -1.
> >
> > Titans/Praetorians:
> > 1) If the shield is up, no damage possible.
> > 2) If the shield is down, roll the best armor location hit, to save.
> > 3) If troops are in an armored position, they are safe, just like the
> > crew.
> > 4) If troops are exposed, they save at -1.
> >
> >
> > Is this correct?
> >
> > Warprat ;)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter Ramos wrote:
> >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Looked at the datacard and you are absolutely correct, I'd take your
> > > interpretation of which are affected, if they are in firing positions
> and
> > > shields down then they may be affected.
> > >
> > > Thanks for clearing that up.
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <siggi_at_...>
> > > To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 1:10 PM
> > > Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Imperator troops, save vs Squat rad bomb
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > My point is that the Datacard identifies locations on the Titan that
> > > > if they are occupied by squad that squad can fire from the titan, and
> if
> > > > they can fire from the titan they can be fired at (if shields are
> down)
> > > and
> > > > therefore Rad bomb will affect them just as if they located in a
> building
> > > or
> > > > trenches.
> > > >
> > > > If the intepretarion from GW days states that all can fire, then
> > > > people have not read the DataCard (Upper right corner where it states
> that
> > > > Squads in certain location's can fire others can't. It can't be
> misprint
> > > on
> > > > the datacard)
> > > >
> > > > Ref to the Datacard follows:
> > > > http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Delta/3443/neimpdc1.jpg
> > > > http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Delta/3443/neimpdc2.jpg
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Siggi
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Peter Ramos [mailto:primarch_at_...]
> > > > Sent: 12. september 2000 16:42
> > > > To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Imperator troops, save vs Squat rad bomb
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > But the intepretation from GW days does state they all can in fact
> fire. I
> > > > guess logic dictates that the titan would have radiation shielding,
> but
> > > that
> > > > would make them immune to the rad bomb.
> > > >
> > > > I can go both ways on this.
> > > >
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: <siggi_at_...>
> > > > To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 10:40 AM
> > > > Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Imperator troops, save vs Squat rad bomb
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > h there!
> > > > >
> > > > > If you look at the Imperator Titan Datacard you see that there are
> > > > > defined locations on then titan where "squads may fire from the
> titan"
> > > (8
> > > > > Location of 25), it does make sense to asume squads in thease 8
> > > > location's
> > > > > take a hit from Rad bomb but those located inside of the titan are
> safe
> > > > > (radiation shielding and stuff like that remenber, if a puny SM is
> safe
> > > in
> > > > > the most hazardous surounding's it would be safe to asume that the
> > > > Imperator
> > > > > should be abe to provide the same protection for the personel and
> > > troop's
> > > > > it's transporting).
> > > > >
> > > > > ps. You can't place 18 devestators inside the Imperator and expect
> them
> > > > all
> > > > > to fire out.
> > > > >
> > > > > Siggi
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Peter Ramos [mailto:primarch_at_...]
> > > > > Sent: 12. september 2000 12:08
> > > > > To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Imperator troops, save vs Squat rad bomb
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi!
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be reasonable, but too advantageous. There should be a
> > > > possibility
> > > > > of them getting hurt otherrwise its too easy to stick a heavy
> weapons
> > > > > company in the Imperator and reek havoc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Weasel Fierce" <septimus__at_...>
> > > > > To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 1:48 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Imperator troops, save vs Squat rad bomb
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >This is a very good question. I would treat the Imperator in this
> > > case
> > > > as
> > > > > a
> > > > > > >building, so yes the rad-bomb would effect the troops carried.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wouldnt it be fair to assume that a mighty imperator would have
> some
> > > > sort
> > > > > of
> > > > > > radiation shielding?
> > > > > >
> > > >
> _________________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
> > > > http://www.hotmail.com.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile
> at
> > > > > > http://profiles.msn.com.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> >
> > To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> >
> >
>
> ____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
> Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
> Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633
> ___________________________________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Received on Wed Sep 13 2000 - 06:21:01 UTC
