[NetEpic ML] Re: Let the Revision begin!!

From: Brian Evans <brian.a.evans_at_...>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 01:44:33 -0500

----- Original Message -----
From: Kelvin <kx.henderson_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 7:04 PM
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: Let the Revision begin!!


> Hey, I'd actually really like to see this. SOME vehicles should not be
> included like the Ork Warbuggy and Wartrak (I think troops could pin 'em)
> but in general, Tanks should not be pinned by infantry. It was always a
> bit of a gbugbear in the rules for me. Why on earth would a Land Raider
> hang around to get trounced by a bunch of Harlequins when it could take
> off? Its bigger and heavier and I'm sure the crew don't care if they run
a
> few Harlequins over. I think tanks should be a seperate class for pinning
> and Close Combat. Makes sense.

If an infantry stand and a tank come into base-to-base contact we know that
they have come close enough for close combat. How are we going to resolve
the infantry close combat attacks against a tank that has movement
remaining?

Real world: My infantry can close combat the tank by shooting their
bazooka, shooting rifle grenades, throwing satchel charges, attaching
anti-tank mines, etc. As you can see, tanks can be destroyed without
actually having to climb on top of the tank. You can be driving by, all I
need is for you to come somewhat close to me (100 yards or so) and I have
the capability of destroying your tank. (Epic is on too large a scale to
identify specific close combat attack, close combat is considered to be
close range weapons fire as well as actually physical confrontation)

Game balance: If you want the benefit and protection of moving away from
close combat, what disadvantage or vulnerability are you willing to bear?

Brian A. Evans
Received on Wed Dec 29 1999 - 06:44:33 UTC