[Epic] Re: Buidings in E40k

From: <csalvato_at_...>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 97 15:00:29

           *BUILDINGS IN COMBAT*
> For the purposes of combat, treat buildings as immobilized war
> engines. Thus, when firing at a building, the number of dice
     rolled
> should equal the firepower being brought to bear on the
     building, and
> War Engine close assault weapons automatically cause critical
     damge,
> etc.
     
>So, when you fire at 'that building' you're only firing at the
>building and nothing has any chance to hit the infantry inside
>(unless it causes a critical/destroys the building) right?
     
     Yes
     
> Size Armor Damage Capacity Assault Firepower
> ---- ----- --------------- ------- ---------
> Small 6+ 15 5 5
> Medium 6+ 30 10 10
> Large 6+ 45 15 15
>
> Thus, any hit which meets or beats the armor value has a chance
>to cause critical damge to the building as per the normal rules for
>war engines.(i.e., successfully beating armor on a 6, then roll a 6
>to cause critical damage)
     
>But hits can only be caused by SHVs and Titans, right? I'm just
>trying to put this all together. Infantry and vehicles can't do
>squat (no pun intended) as I understand it. Or did you mean ANY
>super heavy weapons, regardless of where they're mounted? This would
>make more sense.
     
     Well, at first I meant that anything (infantry, vehicles, super-heavy
     weapons, whatever) could potentially shoot up a building. I figured
     everything, with the possible exception of assault troops, had some
     sort of heavy hitting weapon (1 hvy weapon per tactical squad, etc.)
     However, I can see the argument that "normal troops" shouldn;t be able
     to hurt a building by firing at it. (See assault, below)
     
     So yeah, only super-heavies can actually cause damage to a building,
     although wether or not they're on a titan makes no difference, so Land
     Raiders, for instance, can go ahead and shoot up buildings.
     
>I don't think a big infantry firefight should bring a building down,
>even if tanks are involved (but I've never tested this personally
><g>).
>OTOH a Scud missile can bring down a building. Apparently Andy and
>Jervis were watching the battles in Sarajevo and Chechnya.
     
     Yeah, firefights aren't really that realistic. I just included it to
     complete the profile (see assault below)
     
> *BUILDINGS IN CLOSE ASSAULT*
> When a buidling is close assaulted (or engaged in a firefight),
     check
> the appropriate stat on the profile above. In all cases, the
> assaulting units may never take casualties as a direct result
     of
     
> assaulting a building, nor are they ever forced back.
     
>This seems a bit silly on the surface. Assaulting a building? I
>guess I could see it though - Bloodthirster stubs toe on rubble,
>lashes out with axe at nearest piece of concrete...
> rate the "toughness" of the buildings. I wanted to make sure
     that a
> single squad with an Assault of 1 would have a very slim chance
     of
> actually doing some damage to a building.
>Why not just scratch the assaulting part? I don't think building
>damage should belong in the assault or firefight phase, personally.
     
     Alright, here we go. Imagine 5 stands of assault marines assaulting a
     building. each stand of 5 marines can have melta bombs. Imagine 2 or
     3 melta bombs planted on 3 or 4 vital support columns. Or a stand of
     Orks blowing up the main power supply with their boltas/axes/big
     sticks. Or, to borrow your example, the Bloodthirster hacking away at
     the same support beams and power supply. Hmm, maybe the units have to
     actually *enter* the building to assault it. Well, that's what I had
     in mind. The Assault factor was to keep Gretchin stands from taking
     buildongs down...Maybe I should double them so that while improbable,
     Assault with a large enough force can be done.
     
     How about this: no matter how many stands are actually in base
     contact with the building, the building can only ever take 1 hit in
     close assault. Thus, even if you have 5 assault marines assaulting
     the building, they get to roll only 1 die to damage the building.
     Thus, a single unit in close assault with a building would (more than
     likely) need to roll a 6 just to do damage to the building.
     
>2 +3 The building shakes violently! All units inside the
> building are hit as if under a Heavy Barrage Template
     
>Do you mean "The attacker should place one barrage template on the
>units in the building. Resolve immediately as a Heavy Barrage."? Or
>do you really mean "Hit the units in the building with a Firepower =
>Units x 2 attack."? The latter seems quite potent, especially if
>you're talking really large buildings. I would tend to limit this to
>the template.
     
     I meant the former, but gaining armor benefit and "in cover" firepower
     reduction. also, tho, that's why it's at the 2 spot 8)
     
>3 +2 Heavy Shrapnel fills the building! Roll 1d6 to hit each
> unit in the building
     
>This is really potent too - Most troops would lose 1/3 of what's in
>the building. I guess I'm leaning towards the criticals damaging the
>building more than the troops. Or perhaps you should just place one
>template again and treat as a mega-cannon shot? With these kind of
>crits, I'm inclined to always shoot at the building and never at the
>troops inside, which is not what was designed for, I think.
     
     Hmm...Agreed. Far too nasty. Instead, any detachments in the
     building gain 1 additional blast marker.
     
>4-5 +1 The units inside are thrown into disarray! All units are
> treated as if hit by a Disrupt Weapon
     
>i.e. Roll one die for each detachment in the building, on a 4+ it
>takes an additional BM or roll one die for each UNIT (this would be
>way too powerful for a 4-5 critical, IMHO, especially in large
>buildings which are looking way too much like death traps now). One
>disrupt on each detachment would be reasonable.
     
     roll 1 die for each _detachment_ in the building (my bad). Hmm, with
     changes to #3 above, I'll probably just consolidate the two so that
     3-5 is add one blast marker.
     
> 6-8 +0 The Building holds steady under the attack.
>I like this one. :-)
     
>9 +1 A large chunk of Debris falls on a unit! One random unit
> inside the building takes a hit
>This is reasonable too, but let your opponent choose the unit.
     
     Agreed.
     
>10 +2 The building shifts in its foundation! Units inside the
> building may not shoot and may not perform Special Orders
> (Overwatch, Assault, March, Etc.)
>How about just each detachment with a unit in the building gets an
>extra blast marker.
     
     
     
>11 +3 The building bursts into flames! Each shooting phase,
> roll 1d6 to hit each unit in the building. Additionally,
> the building takes 1 damage each turn. Don't roll for
> Critical damage for fire damage
     
>Flames! Yikes, this is nasty. I like the idea though, but I think
>this should be +4 damage and listed as 12 on the chart. Instead of
>rolling 1d6 to hit each unit, I would automatically add 1 blast
>marker to each detachment with a unit in the building during each
>shooting phase hereafter.
     
     How about a 1d6 firepower hit ignoring cover, blast markers placed as
     normal (i.e., 1 if any hits are caused). The player whose units are
     in the building gets to decide where the hits go. Units inside still
     get the armor bonus, though
     
>12 +4 The Structure is severely damaged! Treat all units inside
> the building as if hit by a Barrage
     
>I would make this a +3 and place a single barrage template wherever
>you feel the structure was damaged. Treat as a mega-cannon shot.
>Put it in the 11 slot.
     
     Yesss!!!!! I like that. But it has to be on the side that the shot
     which caused the damage comes from. (i.e., no hitting the devs on the
     opposite side of the building)
     
     As far as switching the two goes, I can see it.
     
>3-4 4-5 5-6 Crumbling The building begins a slow crumble! roll 1d6
> to hit each unit still inside the building at
> the end of each movement phase. At the
> beginning of each turn, roll a d6: on a 5 or 6,
> the building is Destroyed as below
     
>I like this chart - seems reasonable. I would not only roll to hit
>but add a blast marker too.
     
     Gain a blast marker if any units are hit, as per standard damage
     results.
     
>5-6 6 --- Destroyed The building collapses under the incredible
> assault. Units in the building are destroyed
> unless they roll a 4+
     
>Bail-out roll makes sense. This is very reasonable.
     
     Yes, I just picture Ork Boyz leaping out of windows to avoid the
     crumbling infrastructure, or Eldar franticly scrambling out the door.
     Also on this particular result, note that this can never happen to a
     "large" building outright.
      
>Well there they are. I wanted to make buildings pretty tough,but yet
>still vulnerable to big guns (as they should be). Additionally,I
>thought that while offering great cover and protection to infantry
>(+2 to armor), there should be a price to pay. The Critical Damage
>chart represents this difficulty, and the Catastrophic chart
>represents the chance that the units inside can evacuate.
     
><whew> Good work all in all. I guess you've noticed by now that I
>really feel you should tone down the critical damage effects on the
>occupants of the building. That +2 armor won't mean much if folks
>stop shooting at the infantry 'cause they can get more bang for the
>buck by shooting at the building. Your catastrophic chart is great -
>I think in combination with a crit chart that hurts more building
>than infantry these will be very good rules. (IMHO)
     
     Well, they were written with *no* playtesting, and I actually had
     never played nay incarnation of Epic at the time they were written.
     Now that I've played a bit, I agree that a lot of the damage stuff
     should simply be reduced to blast markers.
     
     As for assault, well, I'd like to keep it an option. Even tactical
     marines can get krak grenades. Hell, even enough gretchin running
     around in the guts of a building can cause some havoc...
     
     Anyway, I welcome all feedback.
     
     Thanks for your comments
     Chris
Received on Tue Jun 10 1997 - 14:00:29 UTC