From: Zerloon <zerloon_at_...>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:44:39 +0200
At 11.49 21/04/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I agree with Peter. This will change the game completely.
I agree also. Peraphs a "optional" rules, but I dislike it very much!!!
>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/>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/>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=214508.1858224.3361270.1501205/D=egroupweb/S=1705059081:HM/A=949165/R=0/*http://content.search.shopping.yahoo.com/search/tmpl?tmpl=psshowcase2001.html&query=tag:PSshowcase2001+%23cversion%3A%7Bimage_PSshowcase2001+url_PSshowcase2001+desc_PSshowcase2001+title_PSshowcase2001+morehtml_PSshowcase2001%7D&q=PSshowcase2001>e609e.jpg
>
>e60b9.jpg
>
>To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Received on Tue Apr 23 2002 - 22:44:39 UTC
