I remember reading in one of the books that came with the game about how if
you have models of destroyed vehicles that potentially you can use them as
cover. That's an idea that would make the battle all the more realistic. I
mean heck, there are STILL wrecked planes and vehicles littered all over the
world from wars. They didn't "leave the table." 8')
Wait, I found it. in the battles book they suggest that when a vehicle is
hit, roll a d6 to see if the vehicle is blown to oblivion(roll of 1-3) or
just into a burning worthless wreck (roll of 4-6). In the event of a
wreck-roll, the vehicle blocks movement until it is pushed aside by another,
larger vehicle. I guess that's why most of GW's tanks come with plow blades.
Also it mentions that using craters from Blast Markers as cover is
acceptable. So basically I got these two sections mixed, but the point is
there, I hope.
Liquid
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Skinner <askinner_at_...>
To: space-marine_at_... <space-marine@...>
Date: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 7:36 AM
Subject: [Epic] Modeling and the game (was Casualties)
>Los wrote:
>>
>> Well I guess it depends on whether you can afford to spare some extra
>> figures. People will go to extrvagant levels and spend lots of money to
make
>> a realistic tabletop battlefield with terrain craters etc, then you just
flip
>> the bases over for casualties? I'm willing to sacrifice an extra sprue or
two
>> for effect. Also some black cotton for burning wrecks. Never once has
anyone
>> whose seen it complained about the efeect. I guess there's a little
modeller
>> in me <g>
>
>Does this bit of modeling have an effect on the game? Should it?
>Remember that someone joined the list (still here, I assume) and
>said that in one of his first games, his opponent got some Rhinos
>on a crucial bridge. The Rhinos got shot, and there was the question
>of whether they stay there and block the way or are removed. We
>normally remove casualties from the board--the shots that blew them
>up must have blown all the bits right off the bridge! Epic 40K doesn't
>say anything about this in the rules that I remember, but does suggest
>making smoke clouds or separate casualty figures. ("GW mail order? I'd
>like to order a second Space Marine army for casualties. I'm going to
>paint them up the way I did the good ones, then spend extra work on to
>make 'em look blown up. I'll be getting into Orks soon, so I'll two
>of those armies, too. You guys always seem so happy when I call." :-)
>
>If you do use wrecked vehicles as scenery, do they count as terrain?
>I assume they don't affect line of sight (they didn't when they were
>alive), though a Land Raider is as big as at least a part of some of
>my scenery. Would it add interesting (not complicating) bits to the
>game to handle this? (Engineers or vehicles needed to get enemy
>wreckage off the bridge.)
>
>Citadel Journal allowed infantry units to follow a friendly tank
>closely and use it for cover. Seems like a blown up tank would offer
>pretty much the same thing. (I wonder if the bulk of that CJ rule
>would have been handled by saying that vehicles could block LOS,
>and not infantry. I know it doesn't handle the CC part, but I don't
>think that's necessary, anyway.)
>
>some ramblin'
>
>andy
>
>--
>Andy Skinner
>askinner_at_...
>
Received on Wed Jan 07 1998 - 15:14:28 UTC