Re: [Epic] Re: Buidings in E40k

From: Erik K. Rutins <snowdo1_at_...>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 20:41:52 -0400

Chris,

> 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 agree with you - this should be the rule.

> Yeah, firefights aren't really that realistic. I just included
it to
> complete the profile (see assault below)

I vote for taking out the possibility of attacking a building in the
firefight phase.

> 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.

Hm. I follow your logic, but I would say just consider that
incorporated in the shooting phase. If you get the assault marines
within 15cm of a building, they can shoot at it. If they can shoot at
it, they can also chuck their melta bombs. I could see allowing Titans
to do it, but I would really say that there would have to be a chance
that you blow yourself up or cause yourself damage attacking a building
up close. Again, my vote is to keep the building damage to the
shooting phase or build in some serious risks.

> 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.

As far as I can tell, this would make it virtually useless to assault
the building, so why not just keep it simple and say you have to shoot
a building down, one way or another. If you're at close range,
visualize using melta bombs too. <g>

> >Do you mean "The attacker should place one barrage template on
the
> >units in the building. Resolve immediately as a Heavy
Barrage."? Or
>
> 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)

The above is reasonable for the 2 spot. :-)

> >3 +2 Heavy Shrapnel fills the building! Roll 1d6 to
hit each
> > unit in the building
>
> Hmm...Agreed. Far too nasty. Instead, any detachments in the
> building gain 1 additional blast marker.

Makes more sense - perhaps a random hit which if it hits causes a blast
marker? Or change the description to "Dust and Smoke fill the building
as parts disintegrate under fire" and just add a blast marker.

> >4-5 +1 The units inside are thrown into disarray! All
units are
> > treated as if hit by a Disrupt Weapon
>
> 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.

Shoulda read further on - this is reasonable - so 3-5 adds a blast
marker. Smoke, dust, noise, disarray.

> >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

Ok, so one detachment in the building is hit by a 1d6 firepower attack,
blast marker placed if hits are scored (as normal). Armour bonuses
apply. Your opponent allocates hits.

> >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)

Sure, makes sense.

> >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.

Sounds fine.


> >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.

Yes, I noticed and liked the fact that large building will not just
drop in one turn. I also visualized the mad scramble. :-)

> 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...

Hey, whatever floats your boat - I would suggest it as an option and
apply risks to the units engaging the building in hand to hand combat.

Keep pluggin'...

Regards,

- Erik

"Look within. Within is the fountain of good, and it will ever bubble
up, if you will ever dig."
- Marcus Aurelius
Received on Wed Jun 11 1997 - 00:41:52 UTC