Re: [Epic] Net Epic - shooting at chargers

From: Jason Robinson <ewing_at_...>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:21:56 +0200 (EET)

On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, nethol wrote:
> > Great ideas, Peter take note! I still think that a normal unit
> > snap firing at a moving enemy unit should get a minus to their shot. Or
> > at least defending units snap firing at charging units (not necessarely
> > charging at them) should get a minus.
> I agree. Let's say -1 (common infantry needs 6+ to hit in a D6), except for
> specialized snap-fire weapons (they are assumed to have sophisticated
> target tracking devices like todays Oerlikon AA etc).

 -1 to hit against enemies on charge order. I think this should apply only
 to snap fire shots, since units shooting later have had a longer time to
 track the enemy.
 Not entirely related to the subject, but what about changing the fall
 back a little? I dug out my photocopies of White Dwarf Adeptus Titanicus
 rules and noticed the fall back order could be issued voluntarily in
 those days. A unit that has a fall back order must move away from the
 enemy at double rate, may not shoot, and shooting at them is done with a
 -1, due to the retreaters using all possible cover. Useful for retreating
 to the next defensive line. Falling back units would have to take a
 morale test if charged, as in SM 2.
 Also, units out of command could be issued a fall back order, which I
 think would be a good idea for net epic.

> How about devising (or naming) a couple of titan snap-fire weapons as well?

 The Imperator has it's defence laser, but the other titans are lacking.
 Maybe some smaller las cannon size turrets optional for the other
 large titans? I think titan construction should be wholly reorganized
 anyway. Base cost for the frame and then the weapons separate. (I know,
 all this will be talked about later...)

        - Jason
Received on Fri Feb 07 1997 - 12:21:56 UTC