Re: [Epic] Net Epic - Close combat morale

From: Jason Robinson <ewing_at_...>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 18:43:04 +0200 (EET)

On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Seth Ben-Ezra 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?
> 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....

 Yes, Imperators and Mega-gargants are and should be a whole different
 (=bigger) size of titans, which infantry cant directly destroy in CC.

> > 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.

 Glad someone liked it. :)

> > 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.

 Actually, I was just posting the combat table directly from my
 adeptus titanicus photocopies, I didn't mean it should be used as
 it is, but some general ideas could be used. The modifiers aren't
 that difficult to remember, IMHO, and some of them are already in
 use anyway.
 I think the +1 for chargers would definately be a good addition and
 _very_ easy to remember. Making dreadnoughts (and robots!) better
 in CC against infantry would be nice and easy too. The possibilities
 are endless; lets not stick to the old system when we can create
 something better ourselves..

> > 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.

 Agreed, sounds fine.
 
        - Jason
Received on Thu Feb 13 1997 - 16:43:04 UTC