Miller, Chris wrote:
> > By the way, what would you have thought about AT shots being
> > implemented
> > that way? When your detachment shoots, figure firepower and number of
> > dice normally. Add one colored die for each AT shot. AT shots count
> > as
> > one more than the number rolled, and may be placed like regular FP
> > dice. Maybe allow skipping over low armor targets, instead of having
> > them placed front to back. Either add 2 to firepower for blast marker
> > placement only, or use current SHW blast marker placement rules. Oh,
> > I
> > also don't like AT shots
> > skipping cover. Megacannons, fine. Maybe even death rays.
> --------> I'd say keep the variety in weapons from SM, but pull from a
> list, so that a Gobsmasha, Gibletgrinda, Leman Russ, etc instead of
> having individual slightly different stats would just say "battlecannon"
> and make it easy - kinda like WH40K, I guess in that way. Between
> scatter dice, artillery dice, and some colored dice like you suggest, I
> don;t see any weapons system we couldn't model.
You're talking about how 2nd edition could have been simplified some,
but I'd still like to know what people think of the above as an
alternative implementation of ATs in E40K, a smaller thing.
I liked scatter dice, and wish there was some use of 'em in E40K.
> Last minute thought: count all dice rolled to hit. any "6" generates 1
> BM. something like that. Eliminates one more chart, and the more things
> firing at you, the more likely there's some suppression. Lots of 6's
> means you picked off some officers or shot away some antennae (vehicles
> or 'nids, either one)
That sounds neat. I would have liked to have done something along this
line for E40K, except that you can place blast markers for firepower
that doesn't actually get fired, since you remove fp for blast markers
on yourself after you figure how many you place on the other guy.
I love rules hacking--possibly more than playing. :-)
andy
--
Andy Skinner
askinner_at_...
Received on Fri Feb 13 1998 - 21:23:22 UTC