RE: [NetEpic ML] Command unit targeting Part III

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:55:07 -0400

Hi!

-----Original Message-----
From: Jarreas Underwood [mailto:jarreas_at_...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 4:59 PM
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Command unit targeting Part III

>>Can we add the statement that the targeting restrictions do not apply
to
>>anything other than direct fire at the HQ unit? That would cover
barrage
>>weapons (you have to target a valid unit, and manage to hit the HQ
only
>>as a 'bonus'), buildings (you can still fire at other stands in the
>>building, and the building itself) and non-command transports carrying

>>an HQ unit (such as a Thunderhawk).
>>-Yar

>---->Sounds reasonable. I intend to break this explanation down and
give
>a step by step axample of the different caveats.
>Peter

Ok. It sounds like we're talking about the same sort of thing with
barrages
- you have to have a valid target in the first place and in this case
the
building and other units inside are valid targets. It's implicitly
allowed,
but I guess stating it explicitly would be better.

---->Yes we are, no worries I'll be specific on that point too.


Headquarters: HQ units represent a small number of important people and
therefore receive some protection from being fired at. These targeting
restrictions will not protect anything besides the HQ unit itself. HQ
units
can only be targeted if:
 1) The HQ unit is more than 25cm from any other unit of it's pinning
class.
 - or -
 2) You assign at least one attack die to every stand/model of the same
pinning class that is coherent to the HQ unit. You may not assign more
dice
to the HQ unit than to any other unit within coherency.
 - or -
 3) You're firing a template weapon and also cover a valid target.


That work?

----> Yep, works for me.

Sorry about putting 'command' instead of 'HQ' in my previous post. I'd
forgotten that Command is a different ability than HQ.

----> no problem.

>---->That's getting a bit too fiddly, I'd leave it as recommended,
>perhaps some realism is sacrificed but some things must bow to
>playability. The main purpose is to reduce command unit abuse and I
>think the guidelines given do that as simply as can be expected.
>Peter

Fair enough - I'll save this bit for local house rules. It's been my
experience that command units aren't all that susceptable to abuse, but
I
hadn't encountered the 'you can't shoot at this building because I'm in
it'
sort of thing either.

----> I have, but then again I'm an "old foggie" who has seen a little
too "much" as far as cheese goes. I remember quite a few games where
players would form a firebase in buildings shielded by HQ's and then
putting sacrificial lambs in front. No a fun game to be on the receiving
end.

Peter
Received on Wed Apr 24 2002 - 21:55:07 UTC