RE: [Epic] SM Chaos

From: Miller, Chris <CMiller_at_...>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:58:01 -0600

> > > 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.
>
> but I'd still like to know what people think of the above as an
> alternative implementation of ATs in E40K, a smaller thing.
>
        ----------> Ah-ha - I see. Could work, basically firpower with a
-1 save modifier. I'd also keep the targeting ability it has now, so I'd
go with the "let 'em pick" rule . BM placement would work ok using the
current stuff, though you could go with a total FP modifier also. In the
interests of keeping it simple I'd probably leave it as is for that
item. The cover skip gets a little sticky as you're basing the number of
dice you roll on whether they're in cover or not. I guess if you do add
AT dice separately, it works.

        Let's see how this works vs current:
        LR shooting at a predator (AV6+):
        - now: kills pred on a 4+
        - suggested:kills pred on a 5+

        Shooting at Marines(AV5+):
        -now: kills on a 4+
        - suggested: kills on a 4+

        Shooting at IG infantry (AV3+):
        - now kills on a 4+
        - suggested: kills on a 2+

        Hmmmm...ok: currently AT shots lose their value against lightly
armored targets. The suggested system is 50% less effective vs heavily
armored targets, even-up against moderate armor, and 67% more effective
against light (more like no) armor. I like the idea, but I don't know
that I'd call it "Anti-Tank" - you're on to something, I'm just not
sure what to do with it.

> I liked scatter dice, and wish there was some use of 'em in E40K.
------> Great concept - both more random and easier to use than the
standard clock face or scatter diagram.

> > 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.
>
---------> Yeah, the suppression does begin to reduce the amount of
suppression you take, but I'm not terribly hurt by that idea. Would be
a change from standard E40K, though.

> I love rules hacking--possibly more than playing. :-)
>
> andy
>
-------> I always come up with more ideas than I actually use, unless
it's a mudhole of a game like Rifts. Rebuilt that one out of neccessity.
E40K actually has fairly tight rules, though - I've done more
unit-converting than rules bending. I love some of the concepts they
brought in, but it feels weird to play a game which on the table looks
the same, but in practice plays so darn different.

Chris Miller
Received on Fri Feb 13 1998 - 22:58:01 UTC