At 02:12 AM 10/2/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>> > I suggest that movement regarding broken
>>> > units be taken immediately upon breaking.
>
>>> I think all movement should be done at the same time. Just say that units
>>> on "fall back" orders don't count for holding objectives. I have a faint
>>> suspicion this might be in the TL rules, anybody know?
>
>>Not that I found (I checked briefly). But I like the idea.
>
>I like the way it is right now: keep it simple. I _strongly_ dislike the
>idea of breaking up movement. There's a movement phase, and that's what its
>for, regardless of whether or not you're falling back. I can imagine a few
>situations where them moving away would be an advantage, not a disadvantage,
>and if that saved an opponent of mine from defeat I would be extremely
>annoyed. For example, if I broke one of his units, and the rest of his unit
>moved away out of range of my guns only to rally later on and come back to
>haunt me.
>
>Also, with regards to the cowering in basement troops are still holding the
>objective that someone brought up earlier: Sure, they happen to be in the
>building at the time, but their primary concern is not to be holding
>anything, it is to be running away.
But their secondary concern is rallying - they check every end phase - and
they will eventually be back in the fray...
Agro
> Under the objective rules (if we keep
>those), anyone close enough to be contesting the objective would almost
>certainly be forcing the fallback unit to be running away as well, and as
>such the unit in the basement is going to be running away through/past the
>building. I hardly call someone running past an objective a "contest" for
>the objective. More like target practice :P.
>
>>> > crack under the strain you dont get any free rides as far as Vp's, also
>>> > broken units may never claim objectives by be within 15 cm of them. Of
>>> ^^^^^^
>>> Do you mean "broken" as in (a) more than half destroyed or (b) on fall back
>>> orders? I agree with this if you mean (b).
>
>>Same here.
>
>I've always played that fall back units can't claim objectives, and also
>that "mindless" units such as the Avatar cannot claim objectives. Works
>fine. I like it much better this way.
>
>>> > Secondly, it bothers me that units away from any command unit can easily
>>> > regroup if the morale roll is made, not that it cannot be done, but it
>>> > should happen under stiff penalties. This also encourages proper use of
>>> > HQ units as ralling points( as well as give them a more useful role ).
>
>>> That's what the base morale value is for! HQ stands generally give a bonus
>>> for this. Don't forget that there are squad leaders and platoon leaders in
>>> the detachments.
>
>>Good point. Most (all?) command units give that +1 to morale, which is
>>effective enough. Armies that require stricter command (IG, Orks)
>>already have rules for their command units.
>
>Yeah, but it sure would be nice to see command units do something besides be
>one man armies, Rambo style. It would be nice to see them do things like
>command once in a while, for example.
>
>>> > Thirdly, certain feats really need guts to accomplish. Charging a tank
>>> > or other troop stands is what your trained for, but tackling titans ,
>>> > super heavies, and greater deamons- I think at least some morale checks
>>> > are in order! maybe even at a penalty.
>
>>> Ok, maybe a morale check at the base morale level could be required to
engage
>>> SH's, Titan's, etc. I don't like the idea of penalties.
>
>>Don't Greater Demons already require a morale check? Personally, while
>>morale checks might be required vs. Titans, I don't think that super
>>heavies should necessarily require morale checks across the board.
>>Perhaps certain units (Leviathan or Colossus) but other units would
>>become far too powerful if they couldn't be pulled down in CC (Knights,
>>for example. Of course, since Knights aren't coming back, does it
>>matter? :] )
>
>Knights might not be coming back out in Epic 40k, but that's what where
>making this for, right :P. To keep us from ever having to deal with this
>from GW again. I like the idea of forcing morale checks to attack Titans
>(and GDs already have this). I feel that Titans have gotten really watered
>down since the ol' glory days of Space Marine 1, where Titans had
>electrified skins and such to keep swamping them from being too easy. And I
>personally have been really bothered by the fact that they aren't
>awe-imposing, morale causing monstrosities. I would rather charge an
>alien-looking but (relatively) small Carnifex then be ordered into close
>combat against a sky-scraper tall, earth-shaking Imperator. (but maybe
>that's just me :P)
>
>Frex:
>"You want me to charge what!?!!
>
>That walking building over there with the firepower to lay waste to whole
>hives in a matter of minutes.
>
>The one that just stepped on that tank, which is incidentally already many
>fold my own size?
>
>Yup, that's the one. Try to hack off, or at least dent its toe a little.
>Though watch over for the power armor marines that could come charging out
>of its fortress-like legs at any moment.
>
>Urp."
>
>On another note, we might want to consider phasing out the Squat
>Superheavies later on, and changing them into Titans. It really would make
>the game a lot easier organizationally, while playbalancing them more. It
>would get rid of the quasi-category of Titan sized Superheavies, whose only
>apparent distinction from Titans seems to be lack of limbs. Thus we
>wouldn't have to say that Squat Superheavies, the Leviathin, the Hellbore,
>the Capitolis Imperialis, and Titans cause morale checks when
>charged/charging, just Titans cause morale checks when charged/charging.
>
>>> > Fouthly, is firing at a unit that charges you a given if you have first
>>> > fire orders? doesn't it require disipline to accomplish such a task?
>
>>> Definitely should be allowed to do this without a test!! The only thing I
>>> would like to see changed about charging and FF is that command units
>>> should not be allowed to engage in CC and FF in the same turn, but that's
>>> not a morale issue.
>
>>Again I agree. IMHO, it is safe to assume enough discipline to accomplish
>>such a task unless the charging unit is exceptional (GD, etc.). Even
>>Orks and IG are still soldiers and wouldn't be shaken by the sight of
>>normal troopers charging at them. Now, if they were Juggernaughts,
>>that might be different....
>
>I don't like this idea of having to morale test if you're being charged by
>anything less than a GD/Titan. While being charged by "normal" troops is
>probably still pretty scary, I don't think its to the "deer in the
>headlights" point of scariness yet, and most peoples panic reactions would
>probably be to cut loose with their guns if anything. These are presumably
>battle tested veterans in the Dark Future that Knows Only War, or at least
>newbies who are used to the idea of giving up their lives for the religion
>which is their Emperor. Something has to be pretty damn scary for people to
>lose all control over their minds/body and just stand there waiting to be
>butchered.
>
>Michael the long-winded Liu
>
>
Received on Wed Feb 12 1997 - 09:32:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:07 UTC