RE: RE: [NetEpic ML] Re: [v5.0] Core Rules Part II

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:38:12 -0400

Hi!

-----Original Message-----
From: Weasel Fierce [mailto:septimus__at_...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 3:47 PM
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: RE: [NetEpic ML] Re: [v5.0] Core Rules Part II


>
>Command units can only be fired at IF they are in buildings or other
>defensive structures, are more than 25cm from a unit of their same
>pinning class or are in unit coherency with a unit of its same pinning
>class and the opponent has assigned attack dice to all models in the
>unit BEFORE assigning attack dice to the command unit and then only a
>maximum of ONE attack dice may be declared against it.

Ok...the building part makes no sense whatsoever.

You mean that a captain standing with 30 other marines on a plain is NOT
a
viable target...but the captain hiding inside a trench with those
marines
will now be waving his banner up high for everyone to lob grenades at
him ?

----> Read my other post regarding unassailable posts. If it where just
a single HQ stand in a defensive structure it would be easy, but what do
you do when the player adds a unit with massive firepower with that
commander and you can't shoot at it because there are other closer
units? Even when it's obvious that is the greater threat? The rational
behind this rule is that defensive structures are targets so players
won't "cheat" by shielding good units from harm by being next to command
units. Also remember this part of the rules "or are in unit coherency
with a unit of its same pinning
class and the opponent has assigned attack dice to all models in the
unit BEFORE assigning attack dice to the command unit and then only a
maximum of ONE attack dice may be declared against it". That means it's
damn hard to kill that commander in the trenches since you have to
assign dice versus everyone else in the platoon (for IG that means at
least 11 attack dice!).

Apart from that, this seems very good (as most things you come up with
;)

Why thank you <blush>!!

Peter
Received on Wed Apr 24 2002 - 21:38:12 UTC