| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Making buildings count http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12339 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | gaskran [ Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Making buildings count |
Hello guys! I see that my opponent Pettan has kept you busy! Anyhow, we have been pondering the issue of having basic infantry actually achieving something, instead of just being target practice for warhounds with Vulcan mega-bolters. The choice between a hefty armored company and a tactical infantry company is easy. The armored alternative always wins. This is especially noticeable with some of the armies that carry plenty of heavy artillery/armor company cards. I have never in all my 15 years of play seen a shortbeards brotherhood or a guardian host for that matter. Rank and file infantry simply don?t carry their points. Specialized support card infantry often fill the role of taking and holding objectives inside structures. They also often have a chance of surviving the destruction of the building (any elite unit with fixed saves). Which brings us to my point. The rule framework for structures severely penalizes rank and file troops. Instead of being a terrain feature that provide an anchor point for infantry it is more often than not a deathtrap. Almost all armies are well equipped to knock over buildings. The squats usually toast two or three each round with their Goliaths and Cyclops. Instead of having to go after the enemy infantry with your own troopers you just blast away at enemy occupied structures, leaving no survivors. Once the building is gone it is easy to claim any objectives at the site simply by rolling in with armour. Thereby achieving a far greater result point by point. If one considers the way infantry is put to use in modern warfare it is almost impossible to oust infantry from an occupied building without using infantry. Ruined or not. The battle of Stalingrad is a prime example of that. Therefore we suggest that ruined buildings provide the same cover and CAF bonuses that intact buildings do. Also that save modifiers from the weapons don?t affect the bail out roll of 4+. The infantry bailing out of a destroyed building would of course be placed outside the ruin. This would set the scene for more exciting city fights. One can envision heavy infantry taking buildings/ruins and once they are cleared move on, leaving the structure to get occupied by cheaper rank and file troops. Well that was my two cents.. /j |
|
| Author: | zap123 [ Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Making buildings count |
I have to disagree with you. I always take a Guardian or Defender Warhost, and I always take a Tactical company. Grunts are cheap and numerous and fantastic at taking and holding objectives. A 600 point Tactical Company will do over a Predator Company every time, for the same points. I also disagree about buildings. Most armies have a pretty hard time destroying buildings. They are so much harder to destroy under NetEpic. In SM2 days you would see lots of buildings demolished and infantry perish...these days we hardly ever see buildings destroyed. Sure, Squats are pretty good at knocking them down, but even a mighty Goliath is hardly guaranteed to get one.....assuming you kit it, a standard building will save 50% of the time. If the Squats were wasting Goliath and Cyclops shots on buildings to kill 2-3 stands of infantry I'd be pretty happy. You could always call all your buildings extra strong and equivalent to a composite bunker if you wanted. Destroyed buildings (rough) provide the same cover bonus as a Light Building already. |
|
| Author: | Pettan [ Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Making buildings count |
How is the Bail-out rule on building now? If it is like vehicles it more or less means that its impossible to bail-out. /P |
|
| Author: | zap123 [ Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Making buildings count |
There is no bail out....if something is in a building when it is destroyed they perish. |
|
| Author: | Pettan [ Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Making buildings count |
Thank you. /P |
|
| Author: | primarch [ Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Making buildings count |
Hi! I have to agree with Zap. I routinely use, Eldar guardians, IG tacticals, squat brotherhood and other "standard" infantry. Buildings under netepic rules are VERY resilient. Not indestructible, but much, much better than in the original SM2 rules. Primarch |
|
| Author: | gaskran [ Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Making buildings count |
Thanks guys! After pondering your replies, my thought is that maybe we use to few terrain pieces. The infantry rarely have anywhere to take cover except in buildings. They tend to get overcrowded with scared troopers not wanting to get blown away by the mega-bolter downpour outside. In this way the buildings themselves always present juicy targets for the bombards or an occasional Gargant snapper attack. /j |
|
| Author: | zap123 [ Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Making buildings count |
Yeah, I think as a general rule the more terrain the better. I've had more than a few battles where the whole table was covered in buildings. Good fun, and really brings the foot-slogging (and jump-packed) infantry to the fore. |
|
| Author: | Legion 4 [ Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Making buildings count |
Infantry is very effective ... if used properly ... |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|