Erik Rutins wrote:
>
> > his bike-less & near aspect-less eldar army. My contagions
> > spent the entire game suppressing the heck out of his WEs
> > and vehicles. And that's just not right.
> > have become infested. Fine. So why does this work against
> > armor and titans in E40k? It shouldn't. But in E40k,
>
> Well, it is Nurgle, so they might consider it to have expanded to where
> the plague can rot armor, destroy circuits, etc if the war engine or
> vehicle doesn't go evasive.
Yeah, you can just change the fluff to match the current
abilities of the unit (as GW has done with holofields), but GW
really hasn't done anything to indicate that the old fluff has
been superceeded... I don't know, it just doesn't feel right to
me.
> > (seperate from the weapon itself, that is - obviously ATs
> > and DRs are anti-armor, but should all Disrupt weapons, for
> > example, be equally effective against all kinds of targets?).
>
> A valid question, nevertheless. I've often wished some of those
> monofilament webs could tear into something.
Well, I'm not talking about disrupt weapons actually
being able to hurt their targets. As it happens, I think GW
got it right for the most part - doom weavers and biovores for
example were both very inaccurate, were mainly nusicances, and
were very deadly when they were accurate (whether the target
was armored or not). Wave serpents stunned their targets into
inaction. So I have no problem imagining what's going on when
my titan is suppressed to hell by biovores (because the spore
mines represent a very real threat if they get too close), but
contagions? "What's that thumping noise?" "Sir, they seem to
be hurling... dead bodies at us." "...OK... well, carry on,
then."
> > Bombard shells should be able to crack open a titan without
> > much trouble; manticore rockets should not - and yet their
> > stats are the same in E40k (and neither of them are good
> > against titans or WEs).
>
> This is a great place for a special rule, though. I think GW only
> thought about the indirect fire/HE side of things. Allow artillery to
> fire direct if it has line of sight. Consider them to be using AP
> shells. Heavy arty gets one AT shot at half normal range. Siege arty
> gets two AT shots at half normal range. Sound reasonable?
Can mortars (like the Bombard) ever really be considered
to be firing 'direct'? I don't know how accurate these sorts of
weapons are IRL.
It's a reasonable rule, but as it applies to all arty
units it sidesteps my main point: should all Barrage weapons (or
Hvy Barrage, or Disrupt, etc) be equally effective against
heavily armored targets? Against infantry? Why do both bombards
and manticores exist if they serve the same exact role? I
understand that getting rid of save mods makes the game easier at
the expense of realism; however I think in this case they took it
too far.
As a hack/add-on/fix, I suppose you could add a 'armor
penetration' stat to all SHWs that can be either positive or
negative, and should probably never be more than 1 or 2 - a
positive number is added to your rolls to hit vehicles or WEs,
a negative number is subtraced. Thus, perhaps a bombard would
have a penetration stat of +1, and a manticore would have a -1
(the basilisk would be in the middle with a 0). Of course, then
you need to adjust point values and what-not... which is why
this is probably more trouble than it's worth.
> > I'm not sure where I'm really going with all of
> > this, it just bothered me somewhat when I started to think
> > about how I was using my Contagions yesterday.
>
> The Farseer has been working on you... A Chaos Lord with a conscience!
Nah, it's just that you think of these kinds of things
on 4 hour car rides home in the middle of the night... =)
Scott Shupe
shupes_at_... shupes@...
http://www.rpi.edu/~shupes
***********************************************************************
"You can't throw me to the lions! I'm Charlton Heston!" - Lard
Received on Tue Feb 17 1998 - 00:25:51 UTC