RE: [NetEpic ML] [v5.0] Transports & coherency

From: <jyrki.saari_at_...>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 08:56:39 +0300

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jarreas Underwood [mailto:jarreas_at_mindspring.com]
> Sent: 21. May 2002 4:02
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [NetEpic ML] [v5.0] Transports & coherency
>
>
> I may have missed it, but was there any discussion on
> detachment consisting
> of troops and transports? The current rules say they all have
> to maintain
> coherency, but I've been playing with a house rule that say
> they may act as
> separate detachments and only need to maintain coherency between
> themselves. They're given separate orders anyway, and it
> makes sense for
> transports to be able to head back for another pickup.
>

Strange, I don't remember any discussion either. IMO the transports shouldn't have to dog the platoons.


> On a separate question, do I need to tell my opponent exactly
> what's in
> each transport? As in, I buy a SM Tactical company and 5
> Support Cards of
> Rhinos. I've got 24 Rhinos running across the field - do I
> have to tell him
> which ones contain Marines? I agree that I should have a
> written record and
> be able to prove what's where, but does he have to know? The
> local 40K'ers
> say yes, my common sense says no. What's consensus on the ML?
> -Yar
>

Don't know about the consensus but my common sense also says that a written record is sufficient, provided that the transports are marked clearly enough so they can be distinguished (numbered or something). It's not like the troops in 40k universe have x-ray scanners (they obviously don't even have rangefinders, ref. the targeting rules in most GW games).

Jyrki Saari

-There is no such thing as free lunch because eating takes time and time is money.
Received on Tue May 21 2002 - 05:56:39 UTC