 
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 12 posts ] |
|
Suppression rules question |
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Suppression rules question  Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2003 6:24 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
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...
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Shadow Hunter
|
Post subject: Suppression rules question Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 1:30 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 11:41 am
Posts: 1747
Location: Norton Canes, Cannock, Staffs, UK
|
|
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.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Suppression rules question Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 6:11 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
It used to be LoS, no limit. I figured 120cm would be good enough.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Shadow Hunter
|
Post subject: Suppression rules question Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:06 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 11:41 am
Posts: 1747
Location: Norton Canes, Cannock, Staffs, UK
|
No limit? 
How was it propelled before? That sounds very advanced for the Orks. Though, I gues they have their moments (telaportas).
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
stormseer
|
Post subject: Suppression rules question Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:54 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 9:52 pm
Posts: 4598
Location: Suffolk, UK.
|
..Well, I believe it was technically a teleporta- just one that shot snotlings inside tanks or armour... 
_________________
www.darkrealmminiatures.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Legion 4
|
Post subject: Suppression rules question Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 4:00 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36989
Location: Ohio - USA
|
Yes, I remember the LOS stat, and as you said Storm, it's a crude Teleporter ... What would Scotty say ?! 
_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
iblisdrax
|
Post subject: Suppression rules question Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:36 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 10:54 pm
Posts: 3381
Location: First star to the right, and straight on till morning.
|
|
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
_________________
"Have Leman Reuss, will travel"
"Hallo. My name is Indigo Montoya. You killed my father prepare to die!"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
mr_mich
|
Post subject: Suppression rules question Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:45 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:10 am
Posts: 115
|
|
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.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Markconz
|
Post subject: Suppression rules question Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 3:53 am |
|
| Purestrain |
|
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
|
| Quote (mr_mich @ 26 2004 Feb.,00:45) | | 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. |
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.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
CyberShadow
|
Post subject: Suppression rules question Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 11:55 am |
|
| Swarm Tyrant |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9350
Location: Singapore
|
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...? 
_________________ https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond. https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
iblisdrax
|
Post subject: Suppression rules question Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2004 12:21 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 10:54 pm
Posts: 3381
Location: First star to the right, and straight on till morning.
|
|
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
_________________
"Have Leman Reuss, will travel"
"Hallo. My name is Indigo Montoya. You killed my father prepare to die!"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Legion 4
|
Post subject: Suppression rules question Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2004 5:46 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36989
Location: Ohio - USA
|
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 ! 
_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 12 posts ] |
|
