>Hello Guys!
>
>I am very happy to see that the idea of combining Tony's and my idea
>(actually more like using AT rules) has gotten very good approval, but
>keep those opinions coming in!.
>
>Perrins question on pinning collosi and dominatrixes what nicely
>answered by Spatula(Thank you!!)so as you can see the system seems to
>handle these problems well. The other concern regarding the system were
>jetbikes on advance. this regards more the sticky subject of the
>pinnning rules I wanted to leave this for a further topic, but I'll give
>you my views as food for thought. Pinning was simpler before Titan
>Legions and If we go back to those guidelines it will iron out the
>inconsistencies.The rules were that a like class unit of model could pin
>a model of it same class or inferior class(with respect to
>movement),that is a land raider could pin a ork lungbusta or equivalent
>class vehicle (same class) or could pin troop stands (lesser class), but
>what changed with TL and caused all the headaches was that skimmers
>couldn't be pinned at all. To fix it lets go back to the older rule that
>a skimmer may pin a skimmer and that should take care of it.This still
>may make skimmers on advance to deal with, but that is their strength
>and it will be refreshing to see jet bikes used tactically in advance
>instead of the usual headlong charge. Also remember if an eldar player
>takes advantage of being in advance to avoid as much pinning as possible
>he will also not be able to engage you in CC-get the hint!
Another idea that I thought of last night before I read the last 60 posts
was that maybe units that are not pinned but are in the CC when in comes
to their turn to move need to pass some sort of test to escape pinning
(if desired). If they fail then they are stuck in CC. The difficulty
would be that there is only one test that is even remotely suitable -
morale. However this doesn't really reflect the situation, so my vote
is with your idea of scrapping the idea that skimmers are never pinned.
If I recall correctly, this actually caused quite a stir on the list
about a year ago, and prompted many Q&A. Maybe it would have been best
to scrap it right off... Skimmers can pin skimmers within size limits.
Sounds good to me.
>Another topic I wished to leave for later, but needs some clarifying are
>AA snap fire weapons.The concensus up to now is that all troops may snap
>fire on first fire orders and that command units that snap fire lose
>their movement for the turn. Also the opinions have express that present
>day snap fire units should be different than regular snap fire. I
>originally intended to clarify that point with flyers rules, as before
>here are my thoughts.There will eventually be a flyers phase that will
>be before the movement phase. The idea most expressed and liked is for
>flyers to come in this phase strafe targets and leave, this approach
>will have many advantages(more on that when its time comes).Now the only
>units that may fire in this phase besides flyers are the AA units that
>presently have that capability, all others may not fire back at flyers.
>Units that do not use snap fire in the flyers phase may fire normally
>later if they are able(hydras cannot shoot at land targets).This way
>flyers will be a more potent force and AA units will have a unique role
>in the game.
This is ok, but perhaps we can lift flyer rules more directly from
DS II. The only difference between that and your system is that in DS II
the attacking flyers may be fired at by what are known as "local defence
systems". In Epic this would be roughly equivalent to the unit being
attacked being able to defend itself provided it is on snap-fire.
As well, in DS II there are VTOL aircraft that can remain on table
throughout the turn. I would recommend classifying THawks in this
category.
Another observation is that if flyers only remain on table for a brief
time and are relatively immune to enemy fire, then they will be much
more effective. This will make the current points cost useless. This
could wait until the army lists, I am just making an observation that
may not have been noticed.
Your rules also bring up the question of when deathstrikes do their
thing.
>Regarding the rules about terrain effects on movement at this point the
>only objection was tracked vehicles entering woods-remember the can olny
>do it at 1/2 advance rate this means 12.5 for rhinos and 10 for land
>raiders! In playtesting the penalty is so stiff it was usually not taken
>only in extreme cases. Regarding units with special powers relating to
>movement in woods(scorpions and gorgons) these will be updated in the
>corrsponding army disscussion to accurately represent their abilities in
>light of the changes we made(as will be everything). I understand it is
>difficult to foresee the outcome of some changes, but believe me I am
>always thinking ahead beyond the current topic of discussion to see
>possible ares of conflict.
This is a good point (about scorps and gorgons). Another idea from DS II
is that there is poor and difficult terrain. Poor counts double movement
points, whereas difficult counts triple. This would make scorps and gorgons
better at moving trough woods than other vehicles while still allowing
tracked vehicles to move at 1/3 their movement through woods.
>Special thanks to Seth for his kind remarks and as I said before thats
>what I'm here for-Thanks!!
>
>United we stand!
>Peter
Tony Christney
acc_at_...
Received on Thu Feb 06 1997 - 22:48:25 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:06 UTC