Re: [Epic] Epic 40K Facts

From: <duckrvr_at_...>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 13:29:57 -0600

At 09:56 AM 3/31/97 -0800, you wrote:

>Yes, but everyone, not just infantry, uses the same rules for close combat,
>don't they? That's what I found weird in Epic and Epic40K. If anything,
>I'd imagine that tanks would have a harder time hitting targets at 20-30
>meters than they would at maximum range. Taking and holding ground is the
>job of infantry; but that doesn't mean that everything should be treated as
>an infantry unit.

Yeah, okay. Perhaps it can be rationalized as the limited agility of armor
is made up for by the difficulty of damaging it.

>
>>>The idea of swarming over a
>>>moving tank and planting charges on it sounds like a load of hooey to me.

>I'm also a little over-critical here because of the rules in Warhammer 40K
>for infantry against vehicles, where troops simply run up to a moving tank
>and place charges on it with little fear of anti-personnel charges (bought
>as extra wargear), flechette defenses, or even being run over. The only
>thing that stops them is an electric hull (also extra wargear). The most
>bizarre part is that infantry armed with a sufficiently powerful
>hand-to-hand weapon can simply _punch_ the tank, or hit it with the
>axe/sword/rod and blow it up. Weird. I've been assuming that that's what
>their Epic counterparts do, except on a whole new scale.

Yeah, but it's heroic. Historically, though, offensive weapons tend to
surpass defensive measures from a development point of view. Clubs still
injure through leather hides. Swords will cut through chainmail. Bullets
go through Kevlar. Rockets go through tanks (sometimes). Apparently the
power weapons are better than composite materials and force fields.

>>Well, tanks receiving fire have to "bottle up."

>Still sounds questionable to me.

I was just trying to answer your question about whether tanks can be
suppressed. It would also depend on the kind of fire they were taking, I
suppose.

BTW, I just heard this little tidbit, and I was wondering if anyone could
confirm/deny it: The reason armor is called "Tanks" in English is that
during WWI when the British were transporting them they would ship them in
big crates. In order to keep what was really in them secret they would list
them on manifests and mark the crates "tank" (as in water or oil tanks,
obviously). Is this true? Just the linguist in me . . .

Temp
Received on Mon Mar 31 1997 - 19:29:57 UTC