Re: [Epic] Flyers are Vehicles too ... Revisited and Revised

From: John Chapman <john_at_...>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 10:21:13 +1100 (EST)

> heck I like them period. The only reason I wrote these new rules is because
> it was very disturbing to me that the flyers should be the "weird" units that
> disobeyed all laws. In the same way Physicists seek the GUT (Grand Unified Theory)
        Hmmmmmm Im not sure whether they disobey all laws as such. Their
shooting works vaguely like other units. THeir movement (assuming M=something
massive) isnt that much different from the restrictions placed on war
machines. The different armour treatment does make a big difference (and means
a difference of 1 in armour is much bigger than for ground troops). Their out
of order move is possibly a reflection of their speed. While the standardized
rules would be a nice thing game-wise simulation wise flyers (at least non-
helicopters/vtol stuff that cant hover etc) probably are different enough to
need special rules.

> Eldar vehicles and Eldar airplanes that make one able to move 30 cm and an
> other to move 100 cm or more?
        Hmm i think you just pointed out the seam between fluff and game
balance :).
>
> An argument against reloading and refueling is that if flyers need to refuel and
> reload why don't whirlwinds or battlewagons need to? Flyers certainly don't
> need more ammunition then other vehicles and if they needed more fuel, then
> things like Gargants would need a even larger amount.
        True but assume that the flyer's base is like a long way off the
board and they need to hit the burners a bit to get there. That could explain
refuelling (maybe theyve forgotten how to build dop tanks too :) ). As to
reloading etc - Im no military expert but what I do know seems to suggest that
in most air strikes the aircraft tends to release pretty much all its
ordnance in 1-2 big loads and typically tries to avoid making a second pass
over a now alerted (and pissed off) target. So basically here we have the
one attack then burn off home to reload thing. Infantrymen seem to carry
enough ammo etc for a moderately prolonged engagement - or maybe its assumed
that there are a few supply rhinos etc running around the field. (desperately
looks for justification :) ).
>
>
> These arguments aren't really that strong, I'm sure that they're some holes
> in them somewhere, but they show that there is some justification for both
> a conventional flyer system (missions, across the board in a turn) and the more
> generalized system that I have presented before.
        You have some good points.
>
> In conclusion, (just in case you skimmed or something) I really don't have
> difficulties with the current system on a practical basis (except for some
> little problems here and there), but in the theme of Epic 40k (simple, general,
> and simple) I think that a more unified approach is more fitting.
        Yup I skimmed (sorry am at work....) and while the theme of E40k is
towards simplification - Im one who thinks theyve already gone a little too
far down that path (but the status quo is probably closer to the ideal than
it was in SM2).
>
> -Donald Nguyen
        Im not a fan of a change similar to this but it was a good effort and
seemed to be a decent set of rules for players who wanted these type of rules.
                                hows that for subjectivity and objectivity :)
                                                        JAC
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC