Ah okay
I though there is a new rule.BTW gave my "new" rule a try in the last battle and imo it worked okay.
Sometimes some TSM o weapons lacked targets but allover it changed the game not too much.
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Alternative Rules Forum http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=146&t=25681 |
Page 3 of 3 |
| Author: | Mattman [ Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Alternative Rules Forum |
The difference between anti personnel and anti armour weapons in Armageddon is something that is growing on me, so much so that I have been thinking about making a ruleset that mashes Armageddon and NetEpic together. And its not just seeing anti personnel weapons being able to take out vehicles (rhinos or jet bikes taking down land raiders? they don't actually carry any weapons that can get through the armour), but anti armour weapons being able to mow down stands of infantry. I would have thought that the different weapon types would actually add a more tactical element, finding the right units to fight the right enemy would be key. |
|
| Author: | ulric [ Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Alternative Rules Forum |
MagnusIlluminus wrote: I don't consider this to be a 'weakness' of NetEpic. I consider it a strength. It means that all models have a chance of being relevant on the battlefield. This proposal would severely weaken the basic Infantry types, and they are already quite weak as they are. Besides, this is already covered in the interaction between the target's Armor Save value and the shooter's TSM. Doing this would not add any "character" to any models. All it would do is render most Infantry nearly useless. Even moreso than they already are. Titans, Knights, and other Super Heavies are already immune to such stands, as is anything with a 1+ save. Titans are immune to them because such a stand can never take down their Shields (which already require a TSM of -1 to damage). Thus this change is really not needed. Since it´s already covered Quote: n the interaction between the target's Armor Save value and the shooter's TSM my rule would be more or less useless.IMO it would not make INF. and other TSM-0 weapons useless though, it would give every weapon thier targets. I am a big fan of large Inf formations and use them a lot of times, I am sure I can estimate the changes and mechanics quite well. Anyway maybe I give interaction between TSM and amoursaves a try. How does it work exactly? |
|
| Author: | MagnusIlluminus [ Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Alternative Rules Forum |
ulric wrote: Anyway maybe I give interaction between TSM and amour saves a try. How does it work exactly? You have got to be kidding. The TSM of the weapon modifies the save that the target gets to make. For example, a Rhino with it's 4+ save. If shot by a Marine Tactical stand, TSM of 0, the Rhino saves on a 4+. If shot by a model with a TSM of -1, the Rhino saves on a 5+. If shot by a model with a TSM of -2, the Rhino saves on a 6+. If shot by a model with a TSM of -3 or higher, the Rhino cannot save. Well, unless the optional rules for higher saves is in effect. Thus models/weapons that are good at taking out armoured targets have high TSM values. Models with low, or zero, TSM values are not good at taking out armoured targets. This is a basic rule of the game. How can you not be familiar with it? |
|
| Author: | ulric [ Sun Apr 05, 2015 11:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Alternative Rules Forum |
Ah okay I though there is a new rule.BTW gave my "new" rule a try in the last battle and imo it worked okay. Sometimes some TSM o weapons lacked targets but allover it changed the game not too much. |
|
| Author: | Mattman [ Sat May 23, 2015 6:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Alternative Rules Forum |
I have been thinking more about weapons and their effectiveness against targets that they shouldn't be able to work against and think I might try creating a version of some armies with variable TSM depending if they firing against soft or hard targets. |
|
| Author: | primarch [ Sat May 23, 2015 7:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Alternative Rules Forum |
Mattman wrote: I have been thinking more about weapons and their effectiveness against targets that they shouldn't be able to work against and think I might try creating a version of some armies with variable TSM depending if they firing against soft or hard targets. Hi! That's not a bad idea. It will stimulate using certain weapons for certain tasks. Not a bad thing IMO.  Primarch |
|
| Author: | Mattman [ Sat May 23, 2015 9:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Alternative Rules Forum |
Something like a multi melta would be 0/-3 , so would have a TSM of 0 against soft/light targets (infantry, cavalry and support weapons) but -3 against hard targets (vehicles and above). Or (what I prefer more) -/-3 which would mean that the multi melta has -3 against hard targets, but can't damage light targets. A single multi melta will do diddley squat against squads of infantry, but can carve through armour like it isn't there. Matt |
|
| Author: | primarch [ Sat May 23, 2015 9:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Alternative Rules Forum |
Mattman wrote: Something like a multi melta would be 0/-3 , so would have a TSM of 0 against soft/light targets (infantry, cavalry and support weapons) but -3 against hard targets (vehicles and above). Or (what I prefer more) -/-3 which would mean that the multi melta has -3 against hard targets, but can't damage light targets. A single multi melta will do diddley squat against squads of infantry, but can carve through armour like it isn't there. Matt Hi! I like the idea of differential stats based on target. I did something similar to this with my Heresy Rules. Primarch |
|
| Author: | MagnusIlluminus [ Sun May 24, 2015 5:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Alternative Rules Forum |
An interesting idea. Might be difficult to put a value to, but interesting. Yes, I have a one-track mind... 
|
|
| Author: | Mattman [ Sun May 24, 2015 12:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Alternative Rules Forum |
Could be something along the lines of halving the weapon cost for those weapons that can't damage whichever type. For those that can affect both, cost the weapon for each TSM, half each cost then total the two halves. Or something like that. |
|
| Author: | The Bissler [ Sun May 24, 2015 2:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Alternative Rules Forum |
MagnusIlluminus wrote: An interesting idea. Might be difficult to put a value to, but interesting. Yes, I have a one-track mind... You have to be a champion of your own system to get people interested. Believe me, I know! Evolution, Evolution, Evolution!
|
|
| Author: | MagnusIlluminus [ Sun May 24, 2015 5:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Alternative Rules Forum |
Mattman wrote: Could be something along the lines of halving the weapon cost for those weapons that can't damage whichever type. For those that can affect both, cost the weapon for each TSM, half each cost then total the two halves. Or something like that. Yeah, that would be how to do it. Put values to both weapon stat lines and divide by relevant population. For example, a weapon with two stat lines where one line only affects Infantry & LA would be affecting 2 of 10 Model Types and thus would be divided by 5. Unless Infantry should be given more weight as they *should* be more common on a battlefield. |
|
| Author: | Mattman [ Sun May 24, 2015 9:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Alternative Rules Forum |
The Bissler wrote: MagnusIlluminus wrote: An interesting idea. Might be difficult to put a value to, but interesting. Yes, I have a one-track mind... You have to be a champion of your own system to get people interested. Believe me, I know! Evolution, Evolution, Evolution! Indeed. Working on my own rules in my own time and then releasing it might be a better way of doing things. I have lost track of all the discussions going on FB regarding the new revision. |
|
| Author: | primarch [ Sun May 24, 2015 10:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Alternative Rules Forum |
Mattman wrote: The Bissler wrote: MagnusIlluminus wrote: An interesting idea. Might be difficult to put a value to, but interesting. Yes, I have a one-track mind... You have to be a champion of your own system to get people interested. Believe me, I know! Evolution, Evolution, Evolution! Indeed. Working on my own rules in my own time and then releasing it might be a better way of doing things. I have lost track of all the discussions going on FB regarding the new revision. Hi! That's how I do it. Primarch |
|
| Page 3 of 3 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|