Re: [Epic] Unit Transformations from SM to E40K

From: Thane Morgan <thane_at_...>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 23:51:02 -0700

J. Michael Looney wrote:
>
> Thane Morgan wrote:
> >
> > > > 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?
> >
> > I never liked the manticore rules in TL. They had great range, but
> > were
> > only usefull against infantry and were slow to fire to boot. I never
> > understood why four missiles twice the length of rhinos were unable to
> > penetrate armor.
> >
> > Thane
>
> Because the missle was not what hit the target. It exploded and the
> fragments are what hit the target. Stopping shell fragments is what
> tanks and APC armor is MADE to do. All of this assumes that GW has some
> clue about how missle artillery works in IRL.
> Oh? Then explain to me again why the bombard is a -3 and the basilisk a
-2 with smaller shells. I figured any missile that big had got either a
good guidance system or a hell of a lot of explosive. Sure, a lot of HE
might not crack the armor, but if the tank is now sitting in a 50'
crater it probably isn't going to be a factor for a while.

Thane

Thane
Received on Wed Feb 18 1998 - 06:51:02 UTC