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

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 12:25:07 -0400

Hi!

-----Original Message-----
From: Jarreas Underwood [mailto:jarreas_at_...]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 9:02 PM
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.

-->They are one detachment and need to keep coherency as best they can.
How hard and fast people stick to this is questionable and I could go
either way since I have seen players do both.

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?

--->Unfortunately, yes. To avoid the usual "cheating" I would enforce
the "all knowing" GW doctrine. Note while you could write down what each
has, I have still seen fudging as to which specific rhino has the HQ
unit, etc. The remedy would be to have ultra-detailed miniatures for
easy ID as well as a sheet to facilitate this sort of ID. Truth be told
I'd rather just tell people what has what and avoid this issue
altogether. Unrealistic? Certainly. Easier? You bet.

Peter
Received on Tue May 21 2002 - 16:25:07 UTC