Re: [Epic] Hull Down, AT shots, other stuff

From: Eugene Earnshaw-Whyte <eug_at_...>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 01:30:30 -0800

Tyler Provick wrote:

> Look outside. Do you not see places where you could put a tank and give it a
> little better protection. Not out of LOS, but covered a little. E40K is
> representitive, so all those plains that you see are probably filled with little
> depressions, hills, rock piles the size of a person, even small clumps of trees
>
> When just booting along, tanks arn't behind anything, or in depressions enough to
> take full advantage. But when you take the time you will be surprised at how much
> cover you can find in a field. Because this is a movement ability, then you can't
> go on overwatch and be hull down. So it is basically a defensive position. I like
> it and think it works
>
> Tyler

  Having rules for tanks to go hull-down is a sensible enough addition, but since
most of the good tanks have armour values of 6 anyway, going hull down either makes
them invulnerable or does nothing, according to the rules you suggested (since you
can't roll 7's on six-sided dice). Treating the tanks as if they were in cover would
work okay, but I'm not sure if it's worth sacrificing all but 5cm of your movement
for.

Incidentally, concerning the proposal that Titans get a generic shield strength
value, that simply absorbs firepower: I think it looks quite balanced, but where did
you get your value for the Warlord's shield strength? It takes 48 firepower, on
average, to take down the Warlords shields... 48 firepower gives you 36 dice; 36 dice
give you 6 sixes.

Contrast the 48 firepower it takes with the 12 AT shots (8 on overwatch) it takes to
do the same thing. By this line of reckoning, each AT fired (not hitting) an imperial
Titan should reduce its shield strength by 4 (6 on overwatch).

This gets a bit tricky trying to convert it to Gargants, however, since AT shots are
less effective, comparitively speaking, against them.

Some quick values;
Warlord Shield strength: 48
Great/Mega Gargant: 24 + (1d6) * 4
Warhound: 16

On a different note, as a matter of personal opinion I find AT shots a bit too
powerful. Here's some optional rules for toning them down a bit; I wouldn't
necessarily suggest using all of them at once:

1: AT shots score hits on 5's vs AV 6.
2: AT shots suffer -1 from their die roll against units (or maybe just infantry) in
cover
3: AT shots suffer a -1 from their die roll against infantry units
4: A detachment firing multiple AT shots must declare all of their targets before
rolling any dice to hit (note, 4 isn't really an optional rule, just a specific
interpretation of the rules)

I will probably use 2 and 4 if my opponents agree, and possibly 1 as well. I don't
think I'd use both 2&3 in the same game, 'cuz then you need sixes to hit infantry in
cover, which seems a bit much.

Eugene

P.S. What was that you were saying about HTML inserts, Neil? Were you refering to the
little <snip> thingies, or something annoying that my mail program is doing without
my knowledge? There didn't seem to be anything strange about my post when I received
it back through the list, that I noticed anyway.
Received on Sat Nov 15 1997 - 09:30:30 UTC