RE: [Epic] Imperator stats ?

From: Kelvin <kx.henderson_at_...>
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 08:58:40 +1000 (EST)

>I don't think size is an issue. It's kind of the difference between hitting
>the side of a barn and hitting the side of a 747. They are both
>ridiculously easy. The question should be whether the Imperator is any
>easier to hit _effectively_. I dont' think it should be. It's not going to
>have any more vulnerable spots than a Warlord, and as far as "hitting" a
>void shield, why would it be harder to take down a Warlord's shield than an
>Imperator's?

>From my limited understanding of the new rules the whole "armor value
represents the difficulty to hit the target as well as the actual armour" is
stupid. Look at the bloody Firepower table. The more cover something is in
the less chance you have of hitting it anyway as the amount of dice you roll
is less. I think this represents the how-hard-I-am-to-hit-thing nicely. I
can understand making infantry slightly better their armour should be as
they are a dispersed target, but not much more. On the whole the armour
roll should be 95% the atual hardness of the target to fire and 5% how hard
it is to hit. That sort of thing seems to be mostly taken care of with the
firepower table. But I am still yet to see the rules or play the game (I
don't have $140Aus lying around) so my experience is based on the stuff from
here and the White Dwarfs, so its just my $2 worth.

-Kelvin.....

====================================================
   "I'm very angry now. I may even be tingling."
                     -The Tick
====================================================
         email: kx.henderson_at_...
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC