when i played my giant battle the other day, i moved
at one point, thinking, i couldn't do this in epic40k
cause he would be able to suppress me, and then i read
this well thought out email and this popped out of my
head,
suppression for troops, like ground battle, supression
fire is used in close quaters only, not over long
distances, so think of small gun battle in movies
where the guys just pop thier heads from behind tables
and boxes, firing at each other but NOT moving much
cause they are suppressed! - ok, so to me thats close
combat, and if you shoot someone off you in First fire
that was like, hey we properly suppressed them as they
were running over here, or if you tie thats also like
hey, we supressed them in close combat so we're locked
in close combat (just image, hey, cover me while i run
over there to get a better shot, that is close combat,
not firing stuff)
just my 2 cents, still think that somehow suppression
would be nice, but don't think i have any ideas of how
to make it work
amir
--- Albert_Farr�_Benet <cibernyam_at_...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been thinking about all supression rule
> proposals and I discovered that the most I think
> about it, the most sure I feel towards forgetting
> about a supression rule. I realized that the BIG
> problem of approaching to a supression rule is the
> wide range of diferent units in NetEpic. Almost
> every proposal launched in this list has very good
> points to use with some armies (mainly imperial) but
> is unable to get a good deal with others (mainly
> orks, eldar, squats and Slann).
>
> In the end this leads to unbalance (which, at the
> same time, leads to this annoying smell of
> Gorgonzola...). If we want a good rule on
> supression, we should care about the points I listed
> in a previous mail plus these ones:
>
> - Ork mobs. Remember that most ork infantry units
> are composed of 15+ stands. These leads to 2
> problems at least: They are too many and they can be
> so spread over the table, that allocating many shots
> against some of them could not mean, in any case, to
> supress all of them.
> Imagine a mob of 19 boyz, 10 on open field over
> a total distance of, say, 40 cm and 9 of them in
> neighbouring woods. THIS is a problem, because you
> need 19 shots to supress them, and it's quite
> possible you have no chance to fire at all of them.
> Even more, it's possible your fire arc only covers 8
> stands on open field. Could you supress 12 stands
> you cannot fire at? It's not logical captain Kirk.
> Of course this could apply also to any unit which
> is partly out of sight. You cannot supress the whole
> unit by putting some of them under heavy fire.
>
> - Squats, Eldar, Slann and similar armies composed
> of small (and few) units. Though their small numbers
> are balanced with good or very good morale, in the
> end it seems quite easy to eliminate returning fire
> from them.
>
> I'm afraid that our playing system is not designed
> to allow supressive fire without a whole redesign of
> the firing rules (which BTW is a very, very bad
> option). I am for forgetting about adding supression
> under this rules and keep the idea lurking until a
> major redesign is done (if ever).
>
> Albert
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: darius spano
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 3:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: [NetEpic ML] net epic suppression
>
>
> Hello,
> With everyone talking about suppression these days
> I
> thought I'd join in. It seems firepower thrown at
> a
> group of troops and not casualty is what evryone
> wants
> to reflect.
>
> Let's say we will use supression or blast markers.
> This would affect the AF phase. A blast marker is
> placed for every squad firing at the unit, for
> each BP
> fired at the unit and for each unit killed. The #
> of
> markers is counted at the end of the phase
> (AF)When
> the number of blast markers equals the squads
> break
> point then a morale check should be made and if
> passed
> suppression did not occur. But to make this fair,
> every 2 markers above the break point would add a
> -1
> to the morale roll. This would make those termies
> and
> space marines in general more vulnerable to
> suppression. Supression checks would be made at
> the
> end of each phase (so 2 checks could be made, once
> in
> FF and another in AF). A unit failing their
> suppression check would lose their opportunity to
> fire
> if on AF orders. A unit that failed suppression
> would
> have to make a morale check in the end phase to go
> back on normal orders. If they fail they go on
> Fallback orders and if his occurs twice they are
> routed or flee the battlefield.In the end phase
> all
> markers would be removed.
>
> Example: A Tactical Space Marine squad (9 units
> total)
> comes under heavy fire from 4 different squads (4
> markers), a barrage of 2BPs ( 2 markers) and
> suffers 3
> casualties (marines or rhinos no difference). They
> would have a total of 9 markers which is greater
> than
> their breakppoint of 5 and 4 greater which would
> put
> them at a -2 penalty on their suppression check
> which
> is based on their morale (the space marines now
> need a
> 4+ to pass the suppression test). The marines roll
> a 3
> and fail and lose their AF for the turn and must
> make
> a normall morale check to go back on normal
> orders.
> This realistically reflects suppression. Note: I
> agrree that Tyranids and chaos are immuned to
> suppression as long as they have their primarch.
> If a
> chaplain or space marine/IG command unit is within
> 10cm then the +1 to morale checks would apply to
> the
> suppression check. This reflects their resolve not
> to
> crack under heavy fire.
>
> That's it in a nutshell.
> Best Regards,
> Darius
> --- Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Yes, thats true. <sigh> some rules are not meant
> to
> > be I guess.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <eivind.borgeteien_at_...>
> > To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 9:18 AM
> > Subject: Sv: Re: [NetEpic ML] net epic
> suppression
> >
> >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > That was my first thought too! I did not
> really
> > see the need for supression rules in netepic,
> but
> > this could be incorporated without slowing down
> the
> > game.
> > >
> > > Then I remembered that in many cases, if you
> have
> > more supression markers than living stands in a
> > detachment, the detachment is broken and might
> fall
> > back anyway. I dont really see the need for
> another
> > penalty once broken.
> > >
> > > Now Im back on the thought that supression
> rules
> > are not for netepic after all...
> > >
> > > Eivind
> > > >
> > > > Fra: "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_...>
> > > > Dato: 2002/03/01 Fri PM 12:48:44 CET
> > > > Til: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Emne: Re: [NetEpic ML] net epic suppression
> > > >
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > Hey! this is not bad, not bad at all. Really
> > simple and elegant. I like it!
> > > >
> > > > Any comments on this one?
> > > >
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "kume1967" <kume1967_at_...>
> > > > To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 2:34 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] net epic
> suppression
> > > >
> > > >
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball
http://sports.yahoo.com
Received on Sat Mar 02 2002 - 16:05:32 UTC