--- In netepic_at_y..., "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_c...> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> That's not bad, not bad at all. This is actually at lot more like
the
> Heresy rule than what I came up with. I like it! Kudos!!
>
> <bows> I am humbled by your wisdom young grasshopper, you are now
> promoted to games designer first class!!
>
> Opinions?
>
> Peter
It's the best solution IMHO!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weasel Fierce [mailto:septimus__at_h...]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 10:17 AM
> To: netepic_at_y...
> Subject: RE: Sv: RE: [NetEpic ML] RE: Command unit targeting Part
III
>
>
>
>
> >Hahaha, good one. I guess another point would be how hard should
it be
> >to actually identify and target HQ's. I guess it should be
difficult,
> >but defining difficult is another problem.
> >
>
> Perhaps require a 6+ targetting roll (like snipers, except their
roll is
> 4+)
> and then a normal to-hit roll.
>
> Units that fail the targeting roll will loose their fire this turn.
>
> This means that if a full 10 stand tactical platoon fire, they will
on
> average score a hit.
>
> THis will work if we add that a HQ within say 10 cm of similar
troops
> (other
> troop stands for an infantry HQ) are not valid targets for direct
fire
> under
> any circumstances (since they are too close and would be shielded
by the
>
> unit)
>
> Hows that ?
>
>
>
> Weasel
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_e...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Received on Thu Apr 25 2002 - 20:44:21 UTC