Just on the defence against air attack.
Ground units have two options with regard to air defence, they are as
follows:
a. Active defence: the attempt to shoot down or make it harder for the air
unit to place its ordnance where it needs to; and
b. Passive defence: the use of camouflage and concealment by the ground
unti so that the air unit does not know where, exactly, the ground unit is.
Option a. is only useable against low level ground attack aircraft up to the
maximum range of the small arms in use with the "wall of fire" concept of
putting a wall of small arms automatic fire up in front of the air unit that
it has to fly through on its way to the target. With the lethality of
current ammunition and the lack of proper armour on most aircraft, this can
be succesfful. But, this is only done very rarely by ground units,
especially infantry who prefer option b..
Option b. is the preferred choice by units as those that are stationary are
both camouflaged and concealed from either recconaisance overflights by
various methods and equipment against any sensors. Their other defence
versus aircraft is concealment in overhead cover (which is unavailable to
vehicles in Epic due to being unable to enter forested/wooded area or
buildings)and dispersal (which really has no effect due to the way the
system of firing works withing the game).
So as a result of these defences, the flier may know the ground unit is in
the area but not where. Just look at any air campaigns conducted from WW1
onwards in any area up to and including Afghanistan now.
But, of these options, only the option which gives away your position is
available to an 40K Epic commander with no chance at a modifier that if the
unit hasn't fired from that position prior to that turn (or will not fire in
that turn) modifies the attack of a flier a couple of points worse than what
it would be normally.
Your opinions?
Darryl H
The theory and practice of gamesmanship or
The art of winning games without actually cheating.
(Title of book - Stephen Potter 1900-69)
>Hi!
>
>In essence if you dont have AA cover or flier cover and the enemy has
>fliers, you're in for a bad day. You can still win of course, but it isn't
>easy. It works like modern day stuff, you don't go into battle nowadays
>without air cover if you dont you get pounded.
>
>This was sort of intended, but I see your point. Many rules ahve been
>proposed to Address it, but none have passed muster. They either make
>fliers useless of are too complicated. Givng fire to infantry wihtout
>penalty makes it to easy to shoot down and AA units would be worthless.
>
>No doubt others will give their opinions too.
>
>Peter
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Sam Dale" <epic_at_...>
>To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 11:19 PM
>Subject: [NetEpic ML] Fliers..
>
>
> > Um. Something that was remarked upon in my gaming circle was the NetEpic
> > flier rules. Basically, the way they appear to work is that you have to
>take
> > AA weapons (or fighter aircraft) in every army or you can't touch enemy
> > fliers.
> >
> > Why was this route decided on? As it stands, i can fight a chaos army,
>take
> > a couple of companies of line troops backed up with several wings of
> > Marauders and maybe some Thunderbolts, and unless i attack Chaos Marines
> > (they'll need sixes to hit) or there's Doomwings present, there's
>nothing
> > that can do anything to stop them killing anything they choose to.
> >
> > Yeah, the more fliers, the less to hold the objectives with, but if
>you've
> > got firepower to melt the enemy army away, it doesn't matter...
> >
> > Sam.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Received on Sat Mar 16 2002 - 09:31:07 UTC