No limit?
How was it propelled before? That sounds very advanced for the Orks. Though, I gues they have their moments (telaportas).
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Suppression rules question http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=608 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | nealhunt [ Fri Nov 14, 2003 6:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Suppression rules question |
So, based on the comments in the obsolete models thread, has anyone taken a stab at SAG stats? How about: infantry, 15cm, 6+, 6+, 6+ SAG - 120cm range, 1BP, disrupt (no indirect fire) Cost +50 as upgrade to Big Gunz, possibly 0-1 limitation. I think the BP can represent snotlings coming out of various locations (orky technology is not necessarily consistent) and scrambling madly. It also gives them a better chance to hit infantry than armor. And obviously, disrupt is due to the fact that you still have to deal with the little buggers, even if all they are doing is chewing on your kneecap armor. Of course, the BP becomes somewhat problematic if you are combining soopagunz BP with them... |
|
| Author: | Shadow Hunter [ Mon Nov 17, 2003 1:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Suppression rules question |
It sounds okay. I'd definantly have the disrupt ability. What about the range? 120cm sounds very long. Though I dont know what the previous incarnations stats were. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Mon Nov 17, 2003 6:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Suppression rules question |
It used to be LoS, no limit. I figured 120cm would be good enough. |
|
| Author: | Shadow Hunter [ Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Suppression rules question |
No limit? How was it propelled before? That sounds very advanced for the Orks. Though, I gues they have their moments (telaportas). |
|
| Author: | stormseer [ Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Suppression rules question |
..Well, I believe it was technically a teleporta- just one that shot snotlings inside tanks or armour... 
|
|
| Author: | Legion 4 [ Tue Nov 18, 2003 4:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Suppression rules question |
Yes, I remember the LOS stat, and as you said Storm, it's a crude Teleporter ... What would Scotty say ?! 
|
|
| Author: | iblisdrax [ Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Suppression rules question |
I don't understand the logic of suppressing only the units that are capable of shooting with blast markers. Why, if the whold formation being shot at, wouldnt ALL the units in the formation be suseptable to suppressing fire? my 1 question, iblisdrax |
|
| Author: | mr_mich [ Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Suppression rules question |
Because then you get people supressing units like reloading manticores, which seems kind of unfair because they're getting around the negative effects of the blastmarker by sacrificing shots they couldn't take anyway. |
|
| Author: | Markconz [ Thu Feb 26, 2004 3:53 am ] | ||
| Post subject: | Suppression rules question | ||
Actually you can count the manticores as supressed, quotiing Jervis: "Q: Are slow-firing units that fired in the previous turn are eligible for supression even if they are unable to fire this turn? A: Yes. Best regards, Jervis Johnson Head Fanatic" http://forums.specialist-games.com/epic40k....ID=1152 and in another thread: "They *can* count for suppression. All you need is to be in range and have a LOS - actually being able to shoot is not a requirement." and he continues... "With hindsight it might have been better not to change the supression rules, which originally allowed you to suppress *any* unit, even those that were not in range or LOF. We changed the rule to stop players having units that they hid out or sight but could use to soak up BM, but the change has ended up throwing more problems than it solves IMO. Definately something to disucss in the first rules review." http://forums.specialist-games.com/epic40k....ID=1393 In good old Epic40k you could choose which units in your detachments were supressed... looks like we might be going back to that system. |
|||
| Author: | CyberShadow [ Thu Feb 26, 2004 11:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Suppression rules question |
The supression rules do seem to be getting more and more complicated. I would prefer it if all formations were sinply supressed from the back, not counting units that were not allowed to fire for any reason - such as reloading, out of range, etc. I dont think that we will go back to a choice of supression of units, as this would cause commanders to put the weak troops at the frint to both be destroyed and supressed. The original system allowed destroyed from the front and supressed from the back to give the best units to place to hide, and this seems a fine system to me. I am still confused about the single Hydra being supressed against aircraft. It is supressed if nothing else is in range, but not if there are even some AP shots in range of the incoming bomber...? 
|
|
| Author: | iblisdrax [ Fri Feb 27, 2004 12:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Suppression rules question |
Well, my group will probably stick with the E40k style system of suppression, because it is simpler to use. Having to figure out which units can fire, then which ones are suppressed is a pain, IMHO. my 2cents, iblisdrax |
|
| Author: | Legion 4 [ Fri Feb 27, 2004 5:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | Suppression rules question |
Always do what works for you ! I don't really like the way E:A uses mix dets, either. We never intended to play E:A "by the book", only take what we like and add it to our "Hybrid" rules. And as I said we have been using activation since SM1 in '90. And we normally don't use mixed dets, except with Grunts in transports, of course. So my point always is - if you don't like it - fix it ! 
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|