Re: [NetEpic ML] ramblings

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 20:17:57 -0400

Hi!

Hehe, I'm sure you'll get quite a few responses on this one, you touched
upon several points made and argued over in the past. Will be nice to
see what the opinions are now.

Ryan Lawson wrote:

> Ok, for vehicles the CAF is based largely on the number of bolters. A
> Shadowsword (6 bolters) of CAF +6 goes up against a Titan and the bolters
> are useless so why is it's CAF even valid? This was a problem of Epic and
> its way of doing CAF. Only infantry can really do a close assault so they
> should be the only ones who have CAF values. When infantry attack vehicles,
> instead of just doing a Close Combat, let the infantry plant a melta-bomb
> (-2 to the armor save) if they survive the first fire of the vehicle they
> are attacking. If the infantry has an attack that is -3 or higher, then it
> simply replaces the melt-bomb hit. Infantry with power armor, like
> Terminators, hit at a -3 to represent a powerfist and other assorted nasty
> weapons.

I have always fancied something like this, since I admit I have a ltiile
too much AT running around in my head. Vehicles could only ram titans,
they were always destroyed and "maybe" the titan was hurt, a true act of
desperation. Also its been talked back and forth on how infantry and
vehicles should interact with each other in close combat. There is a
slant in epic to favor vehicles in close combat (land raiders +3 CAF
anyone?) over infantry, which in theory should have the upper hand.

Problem with the above idea is how you handle multiple attackers? A
stationary vehicle is a dead duck but what about one that charges in? No
doubt others will point out more.

> Bolters hitting on a 6 at 15cm is pathetic and a waste of time (especially
> when you have 16 bolters on a Colossus). It would be more worthwhile to make
> bolters hit on a 5+ and have a range of 25cm (something that actually
> reconciles with infantry bolters). Then if infantry assault a tank, the
> bolters get to automatically fire on the infantry, but any infantry stands
> that survive automatically plant a melta-bomb that does a hit. I never did
> like that armor saves were not used for close combat and assaulting tanks
> was too easy in Epic anyway.

This is a sore point with me always, but multiple votes have kept it in
place. Why does a space marine bolter fire 50cm and a heavy bolter only
15cm? Not very reasonable. The principals you state, in my case, rather
than alter net epic, I put them forth in Heresy. In Heresy infantry uses
their assault value to save, but vehicles use their armor, thus vehicles
have crap "CAF" but high survivability, infantry the opposite.

> As a standard, all titans should be able to trample.....that's what they do
> with those big feet! Anything the titan touches during its movement (that is
> not a superheavy or larger) should be crushed on a 5+. To assault a titan is
> very difficult at best. Its feet are constantly moving and are up in the air
> out of reach quite often- presenting an unusual target compared to a tank.
> Planting a charge on it would be very difficult (needing a roll of 6 on a
> d6). This way the titan won't kill everything (like pesky infantry), but it
> will be hard to assault the titan as well. And wouldn't the idiots have
> realized the necessity of armoring the titans' legs to a 1+ because of the
> legs' vulnerability to assaults, mines and debris?

Hehe, no arguements here, but the last set of rules make titans pretty
tough against close assault by infantry, but they definately should be
able to stomp.

> When titans fight other titans they should do what they did in Adeptus
> Titanicus- roll to thit with each close combat weapon which has its own save
> modifier and damage modifier. This way weapons like powerfists can actually
> have a point again. If it does not have a close combat weapon it can only
> jab you with an arm or kick you (doing generally less damage). Negating
> armor saves and ensuring that one side always wins in a CC (current Epic)
> causes most titan CC to be fast and dull. Whoever wins always aims for the
> head or reactor with their hit that doesn't deviate and doesn't allow saves
> (nevermind the Shadowsword with bolters blowing past a Titan's reactor
> armor!!!!!!). Then the titan CC is over or the losing titan is screwed with
> one hit.

Hehe, looks like you need a game of AT-BAD!!

> Overall, I hated the CC system of Epic the most. A change would speed the
> game up a little as only infantry would need to roll off on close combat
> (enough to add variety and distinction to units good in close combat with
> high CAF's).

Unfortunately the game mechanics go so far its very difficult ot change
that mechanic and keep the game working as it does. That was the reason
me and Kenneth made Heresy to address all this. Net epic is good at what
is does, but it just cant accomodate a lot of things because after all
we are still using a very archaic d6 based system. We can make the rules
better, the units better the descriptions more exacting, but once we get
into the mechanics you will quickly realize very little can be done
without a major overhaul.

Hehe, if you dont like epics close combat system try E40k's, I beleive
you'll appreciate how much more simpler and to the point it is.

Peter
Received on Fri May 18 2001 - 00:17:57 UTC