Agree with my friend Rune here. No need to change this.
Eivind
-----Original Message-----
From: Rune Karlsen [mailto:rune.karlsen6_at_...]
Sent: 21. april 2002 11:49
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: [v5.0] Core Rules Part II
Hi,
I agree with Peter. This will change the game completely.
Rune
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 3:08 AM
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Re: [v5.0] Core Rules Part II
> Hi1
>
> That's a MAJOR change, with a lot of impact on game play. I'm not sure I
> want a whole heavy weapons detachment fire at one enemy detachment and
> blow all that fire power in one place, when I could cover more ground
> and fire at several targets. Same thing with titans/praetorians and
> other units with are made to engage multiple targets. I think this is
> too much of a change.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eldarepic [mailto:eldarepic_at_...]
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 8:24 PM
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: [v5.0] Core Rules Part II
>
> I think whole detachments should fire on whole detachments. It gets
> too messy when you start allowing individual units to fire on other
> individual units. Of course it is defender's option which units get
> destroyed within a detachment, as long as it falls within the
> attackers range and LOS. Disallow units to be removed that don't
> meet the range and LOS rule regardless of how many hits are acrued.
> Units in the front are always going to be hit first by direct fire.
>
>
> Why is the sense that we call common not?
>
> --- 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
> 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.
> 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
> 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
> CAF
> > >reflects the ability to run over troops and use short ranged fire.
> >
> > I would like an adition saying that vehicles cannot attack troops
> in
> > fortifications and buildings.
> >
> > All regarding buildings and fortifications will be dealt
> separately, but
> > I agree it should be mentioned.
> >
> > Peter
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Received on Sun Apr 21 2002 - 15:05:47 UTC