I do think you idea could be useful to get rid of the messy Exocrine is/isn't AA. You could give the Gargoyles some form of SE that allows them to get sucked into the intakes of passing fliers and thus destroy them....
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Interceptor http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13931 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Warhead [ Sat Nov 08, 2008 5:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Interceptor |
Hi folks, I have had mixed thoughts of how flyers work in NetEpic. Even though I may be fairly new to the change back from NetEpic v4.1 to the new (actually more like old) rules of v5 I had been using an extra house rule ability that help redress some of problems. I would like to air (Subliminal pun, sorry) it here to get a better prospective from you the NetEpic lads. Interceptor: This unit may attack and pin Skimmers/Floaters/Flyers so long as it is on First Fire orders and has a larger or equal basic movement stat than it's target. They are assumed to be at high altitude (therefore a viable target to all ranged attacks) waiting to pounce on passing flyers. The goal is to create air cover from other winged Skimmer or Flyer units. Allowing an alternative air defence and a reason to include these flyers that don't have the greatest of stats. Proposed units so far are: Tyranid Gargoyles, Chaos Furies, a New Squat Gyrocopter, Most Fighter Aircraft (Imperial Thunderbolt, Eldar Nightwing, Tzeentch Doomwing, and Chaos Hell-something's? Dark Eldar whatsits etc...) |
|
| Author: | zap123 [ Sun Nov 09, 2008 10:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Interceptor |
Have you checked out the alternate flyer rules...there's a copy up on the Yahoo group. Largely adresses this I think, though only for actual fliers. |
|
| Author: | zap123 [ Sun Nov 09, 2008 10:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Interceptor |
I do think you idea could be useful to get rid of the messy Exocrine is/isn't AA. You could give the Gargoyles some form of SE that allows them to get sucked into the intakes of passing fliers and thus destroy them....
|
|
| Author: | Warhead [ Sun Nov 09, 2008 10:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Interceptor |
Wow, Gargoyles are why this rule came to mind. Destroyed even on successful Close Combat with Flyer might do the trick. The Interceptor/Pinning idea is also to simulate Dog Fights. A slower aircraft should not be able to so easily escape an engagement with a faster one. I'm looking at the Yahoo Group just now but have been diverted (by my own short attention span) to the photo section. Can you provide a link or was it just general recall? Edit: Further attempts to access PDF's have so far come up with Fatal Errors. The elastic band in my computer must have broken again... |
|
| Author: | zap123 [ Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Interceptor |
I swapped it for a .doc version just for you: Try this and look at the bottom of the page: NE Files |
|
| Author: | Warhead [ Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Interceptor |
Thanks Zap, much appreciated. I got it. I'll have a look at it in the morning but now I'm off to bed. Cheers... |
|
| Author: | zap123 [ Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Interceptor |
Intake slurping noise jokes aside, I don't think Gargoyles or other similar infantry types should be classified as Fliers. In some cases maybe Floaters could be argued, but if you do make Gargoyles floaters you would similarly need to do Swooping Hawks, Raptors, Vespid, Exarchs (!!!), Scourges (!!!) and the like. I do quite enjoy the thought of a couple of squads of Exarchs floating around at high altitude blowing up bad guys at their convenience, but I suspect my opponent might think less of the concept  Too many issues with the rule of unintended consequences I suspect. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|