Re: [Epic] Net Epic - Close combat morale

From: Seth Ben-Ezra <Azathoth_at_...>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:58:03 -0500

On 12 Feb 97 at 13:06, Jason Robinson wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Jyrki Saari wrote:
> > How about taking back the 1st edition system for infantry close assaults:
> > when a stand of infantry wants to close assault a titan roll a die
> > 1-5: split! the stand is stomped
> > 6: the infantrymen manage to wedge a bundle of grenades to the titans knee
> > joint. Roll in the leg damage table with a +1 modifier.
> > This is modified a bit: in 1st ede there were two damage tables; superficial
> > and critical. The grenades caused automatic critical damage, so I thought the
> > +1 modifier would be in order. Or maybe +2?
> > Comments, please.
>
> Actually, the photocopies I have say that the grenades cause a normal
> hit to the legs, but has a chance of causing critical damage. 6+ for
> Frag grenades, 4+ for Crack grenades and 4+ for Melta Bombs. This is
> what it says, but I personally think the +1 is simpler and better. :)
> (also, +2 is added to the first roll if the titan can't move)

This works for me. IMHO it gives a more realistic outcome to a battle
of infantry vs. a Titan. Of course, this doesn't apply to a boarding
action against an Imperator....
  
> Now about close combat in general.
> I suggest implementing the 1st edition rule of losing close combat.
> "Any detachment that loses more melees than it wins during a turn
> must take a morale test in the end phase of the turn." Reasonable?
> It would work better of course if we had saving throws for infantry
> as 1st edition had..

This seems reasonable.

> 1st edition also has some nice modifiers for close combat and separates
> vehicle -vs- infantry melees. Here is the close combat table:
>
> Infantry -vs- Infantry
> Charge orders +1
> Fall back orders -2
> Each stand over 1 involved in melee +3
>
> Infantry -vs- Vehicles
> Infantry stand in the open -1
> Infantry stand in soft cover 0
> Infantry stand in hard cover +1
> Charge orders +1
> Fall back orders -2
> Each squad over 1 involved in melee +3
> Target vehicles AR +/- AR
> (not quite sure what this is..)
>
> Vehicles -vs- Infantry
> Vehicle is a dreadnought +2
> Vehicle is an armoured vehicle +1
> Charge orders +1
> Fall back orders -2
> Each vehicle over 1 involved in melee +3

I don't know about this. This seems to be getting a bit too
complicated. One of the things that I enjoy about Epic is that (with
the exception of Titan-related combat), combat is resolved quickly and
simply. Having these modifiers would bog down the game too much, IMHO.
   
> I also support the idea of having to roll a morale check when
> charging a titan. (with infantry/fast attack troops that is..)
>
> A few more additional snips from 1st ed.:
> Titan Stomp Attacks
> "Titans may make stomp attacks against any infantry stands that
> they move over during the movement phase. Roll a d6 for each stand
> that is stomped; on a roll of 4 or more the stand is destroyed.
> Stands with first fire orders may make snap fire attacks before they
> get stomped, and such attacks will take place inside the titan's
> void shields."

Hmm. I think that this would work against tanks better than against
vehicles. Consider that each stand consists of five men who can
scatter over a much larger area in reality than what their base covers.
 Also the reaction time of infantry is much greater than that of a
vehicle. I wouldn't mind seeing this rule instituted against tanks
either in addition to or instead of infantry. Perhaps, instead of
using 1d6, 2d6 could be rolled, with an 8+ roll destroying a tank and a
9+ roll destroying an infantry stand.

  
> Vehicle Overruns
> "Vehicles may overrun infantry stands in the open during the movement
> phase. The stand being overrun may snap fire at the vehicle if it
> has first fire orders. If the vehicle survives it may make and
> immediate close combat attack and then carry on moving.
> A vehicle may only make one overrun per movement phase. However,
> it may stop after the overrun and attack the stand again in the close
> combat segment."

I like this idea as well. Someone has already mentioned that this would remove the uniqueness of
the Orky Deathroller. This could be easily solved by saying that the
Deathroller gives a bonus to overrun attacks or that it is allowed to
make multiple overrun attacks, unlike a standard tank.

> Opinions?
>
> - Jason

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

P. S. I apologize if some of these comments are a bit off topic,
Peter. :)
Received on Wed Feb 12 1997 - 17:58:03 UTC