Infantrykiller, Tankkiller? |
|
BlackLegion
|
Post subject: Infantrykiller, Tankkiller?  Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:28 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
|
|
How about this as new specialabilities?
Infantrykiller counts as Macro-weapon only against Infantry.
Tankkiller counts as Macro-weapon only against Armoured Vehicles and War-Engines.
Off course Light-Vehicles are affected by both.
_________________ We are returned! http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: Infantrykiller, Tankkiller? Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:01 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
Sounds like a good idea. Especially if, for any reason..., someone wanted to rewrite the Epic rules using different terminology.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: Infantrykiller, Tankkiller? Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:18 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
BL suggestion would give some added flexibility.
For example:
A weapon that is especially good against infantry but only slightly effective against tanks could be
Gun Name Range ?, AP4+/AT6+, InfantryKiller
If it was MW it would still be possibly much too effective against heavy tanks.
In assaults this is what some people have been suggesting for Howling Banshees (Power Swords, Assault, Infantry Killer), so really good against infantry but weak versus heavy armoured tanks.
(I'm not saying this should be put into the current ruleset, as it would require too much rewriting of old units etc. But if a new version of the EA rules was being written I think this is a good idea.)
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Crabowl
|
Post subject: Infantrykiller, Tankkiller? Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 8:02 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:44 pm
Posts: 123
Location: Finland
|
|
Infantry-Killer and Tank-Killer sound kinda funny but the idea itself isn't bad. At least the tank-killer would be great on haywire (missile,rocket,cannon,etc.) but problem with those is that soon they'd require TK versions of each type as well. Might be easier to append the existing macro- and tk-rules in some way like:
"Sometimes the macro-weapon ability only work as anti-personnel or as anti-tank and in these cases the type is listed within brackets..."
Toxic Cannon - MW3+/45cm - Macro-Weapon (AP)
Haywire Toothpick - Assault Weapons - Titan-Killer (AT D3)
Anyway, good luck trying to come up with anything new unless you have a private line to the holier-than-thou-jj as the fans will surely pummel you to death.
_________________
Gief more guns for less points!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: Infantrykiller, Tankkiller? Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 8:03 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
Well I think that trying to model 40k rules in E:A is a mistake, so I don't see the power sword comment as valid.
In general I agree that 40k stats/rules are not the most important factor in making Epic rules.
However, the power sword thing was an example of the kind of use the InfantryKiller/TankKiller (IK/TK) rule could acomplish. If the power sword example is wrong then fair enough, but that doesn't preclude the potential usefulness of the idea for MW to be, perhaps sometimes, split into IK/TK.
Also there is the point that assaults aren't just bashing the enemy with a CC weapon. It's also about firing and moving and all that. So again the reasons for having "power sword" in E:A doesn't entirely make sense.
I agree that assaults are not just about bashing with CC weapons, which is why weapons marked Assault require b-t-b contact to be used.
But if the logic of a CC weapon improving the CC attack of a unit doesn't work for the power sword, how does it work for the power glove wielded by terminators?
A weapon that has AT6+, MW wouldn't be very good against tanks.
If it was shooting at a Predator tank, it would be twice as good. If it had a longish range that enabled Sustained fire it would be a fairly decent anti-tank weapon (think Tau Tracer missiles).
But the point being that weapon that is powerful enough can penetrate all armour. Again I'm not that interested that in 40k Star Cannons have AP3 and thus should not allow infantry to make save in E:A. I don't again see that as anything that should have direct correlation in E:A. E:A weapons fire isn't directly comparable to 40k due to scale of the epic.
I don't play 40k, I have only the vaguest idea of how the rules work (I know the WHFB rules well). So my opinions on BL's idea come from an almost purely EA view point. To me it makes sense that some weapons might work that way (i.e. designed to penetrate infantry or tank armour while being less effective against the other). I see this as a natural extension of the split to hit values on AP AT.
Nonetheless, I have stated that I wouldn't advocate changing the current rules in this way. But if the rules were rewritten (such that the army lists would also have to be rewritten) then I would think this would be a good concept.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
PlushWombat
|
Post subject: Infantrykiller, Tankkiller? Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 8:44 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:03 am
Posts: 135
Location: State of Confusion (USA)
|
I agree with clausewitz,
If the rules were to be rewritten, this would certainly be something that should be considered.
I especially like how this concept could work with artillery....when facing large horde type armies, the ability to select a munitions loadout that is more effective at killing infantry (infantrykiller) would be a nice option to have...and by the same token...when facing a more mechanized opponent...an anti-armor loadout (tankkiller) would an equally nifty option to have available.
This would certainly make artillery more effective...as it should be...after all...artillery is often refered to as the "Queen of Battle" 
Regards
PlushWombat
Great Quotes From History:
And the Lords of Chaos Spoke Unto Horrus and Said: ?Trust Us...You are Gonna Love This!
_________________
Cry Havoc! and Let Slip the Puppies of Confusion!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
J0k3r
|
Post subject: Infantrykiller, Tankkiller? Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:08 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 876
Location: Edinburgh, UK
|
|
Isn't the simplest thing to simply introduce 2 new MW types- MP and MT for Macro weapon anti Personnel and Macro weapon anti Tank?
_________________
"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth; it is wise and terrible."
-Spider Jerusalem
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
rpr
|
Post subject: Infantrykiller, Tankkiller? Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:40 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:32 pm
Posts: 516
|
|
I would make this like AP3+(MW), AT5+ ... i.e. make macro an attack type adjustment, lance could be another and TK too...
That is another thing that is this really needed...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Ginger
|
Post subject: Infantrykiller, Tankkiller? Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:43 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
|
Interesting debate. As far as I know, the intent of MW was to represent something like a tactical nuclear device, ie something with a blast radius, rather than a weapon that could essentially defeat all armour (like a TK weapon). So, while I like the idea presented, I think there are other combinations of weapon / target that can be considered. Perhaps it would help the debate to illustrate the different styles and strengths of weapon. In "old" parlance you might get :-
Rifle, pistol etc ?- AP
Machine gun ? ? - AP (MW)
large calibre gun ? - AT & AP
Anti-tank gun ? - AT (MW)
small tactical nuke - MW
specialist weapon - TK
Given this approach, I would actually prefer to dispense with "Lance" and replace it with AT (MW), thus killing normal armour automatically, RA getting the "Reinforced" save only.
See also thoughts on "variable armour"
_________________
"Play up and play the game"
Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
BlackLegion
|
Post subject: Infantrykiller, Tankkiller? Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:00 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
|
|
AP, MP, TP and AT, MT, TT would be a simple way for abbrevations without taking up too much space.
Andi think this would be a valuable addition to the game. There are weapons which slice through infantry as a hot knife through butter and can hurt a vehcile too but aren't as good against them as against infantry (Plasmagun comes to mind).
_________________ We are returned! http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Ginger
|
Post subject: Infantrykiller, Tankkiller? Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:12 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
|
|
While I like the shortened abreviatioins, I am unsure about TP. Surely a weapon that is a Titan Killer would also kill tanks etc - so I would just keep the following
AP, MP and AT, MT and TK
_________________
"Play up and play the game"
Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
BlackLegion
|
Post subject: Infantrykiller, Tankkiller? Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:16 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Ginger
|
Post subject: Infantrykiller, Tankkiller? Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:32 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
|
The abbrevaitions obviously depend upon whether we want to retain the concept of Lance (killing the RA value) or MW (killing the original armour value).
As I said earlier, I would actually like to get rid of Lance altogether
However, there is one other thing to commend this approach which is better control over MW effects, as you can now define the weapon as more or less potent against Infantry and Tanks. Eg some form of Turbo laser might be highly accurate, so good at killing armour, but not sufficiently flexible to kill infantry, so it might get
MP 6+/MT 4+
etc
_________________
"Play up and play the game"
Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
|
|
| Top |
|
|
