Hello Peter,
Sunday, April 21, 2002, 3:08:58 AM, you wrote:
hi
that's what i think as well !
please do not change it that way...:/
c-ya
christian
PR> Hi1
PR> That's a MAJOR change, with a lot of impact on game play. I'm not sure I
PR> want a whole heavy weapons detachment fire at one enemy detachment and
PR> blow all that fire power in one place, when I could cover more ground
PR> and fire at several targets. Same thing with titans/praetorians and
PR> other units with are made to engage multiple targets. I think this is
PR> too much of a change.
PR> Opinions?
PR> Peter
PR> -----Original Message-----
PR> From: eldarepic [mailto:eldarepic_at_...]
PR> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 8:24 PM
PR> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
PR> Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: [v5.0] Core Rules Part II
PR> I think whole detachments should fire on whole detachments.� It gets
PR> too messy when you start allowing individual units to fire on other
PR> individual units.� Of course it is defender's option which units get
PR> destroyed within a detachment, as long as it falls within the
PR> attackers range and LOS.� Disallow units to be removed that don't
PR> meet the range and LOS rule regardless of how many hits are acrued.�
PR> Units in the front are always going to be hit first by direct fire.
PR> Why is the sense that we call common not?
PR> --- In netepic_at_y..., "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_c...> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Weasel Fierce [mailto:septimus__at_h...]
>> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 2:23 PM
>> To: netepic_at_y...
>> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] [v5.0] Core Rules Part II
>>
>> One change to shooting I'd like to see is a clarification as to
PR> wether
>> attacks are aimed at detachments or individual models. And which of
>> these
>> should be used.
>>
>> >Further clarify. What do you mean? Is there a real difference?
>>
>> As for tank bolters, I definately suggest that they are improved.
PR> Either
>> to
>> a 5+ to-hit roll or a 25cm range.
>>
>> >this we leave to settle with the first army list discussion.
>>
>> > >I'm not sure about knights, what say you?
>>
>> I somehow dont think that walkers of any kind should be have worse
PR> side
>> armour. THey are built for close assault after all.
>>
>> >My sentiments too. I just want to hear more people agree with it.
>>
>>
>> >Vehicles in Close Combat
>> >Most vehicles fight like any other troop stand in combat and their
PR> CAF
>> >reflects the ability to run over troops and use short ranged fire.
>>
>> I would like an adition saying that vehicles cannot attack troops
PR> in
>> fortifications and buildings.
>>
>> All regarding buildings and fortifications will be dealt
PR> separately, but
>> I agree it should be mentioned.
>>
>> Peter
PR> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
PR> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
PR>
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
PR> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
PR> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
PR> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to theYahoo! Terms of Service.
--
Best regards,
Christian mailto:ce.de_at_...
Received on Sun Apr 21 2002 - 09:07:59 UTC