What about this.. if you have more than twice the number of models involved
as your enemy, you are immune to this rule ?
So f.x. 10 ork stands would require the enemy to have at least 5 involved
models to cause them to break
Weasel
Pure in heart
Strong in mind
What need we fear ?
>From: "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_...>
>Reply-To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
>To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Digest Number 1216
>Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 18:00:07 -0400
>
>Hi!
>
>Points taken, Weasel also pointed them out to me; I think we can add
>something, but it will require careful thought.
>
>Primarch
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eivind Borgeteien [mailto:eivind.borgeteien_at_...]
>Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 5:10 PM
>To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Digest Number 1216
>
>Hi!
>
>I can see some problems with this rule:
>
>Different detachment sizes. An IG grunt detachment can afford to loose
>many
>more units than f. ex. a chaos marine detachment. It is a bad loss for a
>chaos player to losse two stands, but its quite managable for an IG
>player
>to loose four. In fact, in this case it would seem unfair that either of
>the
>detachments should retreat.
>
>Morale and breakpoint should have something to do with this also.
>
>Eivind
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Ramos [mailto:primarch_at_...]
>Sent: 16. mai 2003 10:53
>To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Digest Number 1216
>
>
>Hi!
>
>I agree Jyrki, since you been around as long as I, you'll remember
>discussing this before, but I cant remember what the problems were to
>incorporate such a rule. Do you?
>
>Peter
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: jyrki.saari_at_... [mailto:jyrki.saari@...]
>Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 9:02 AM
>To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Digest Number 1216
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Jervis Johnson [mailto:jervisj_at_...]
> > Sent: 16 May, 2003 15:13
> > To: 'netepic_at_yahoogroups.com'
> > Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Digest Number 1216
> >
> >
> > <<LURK MODE DEACTIVATED>>
> >
> > > Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 05:50:39 -0000
> > > From: "Gustavius Q Knackerthrasha"
> > <justin.hewlett_at_...>
> > > Subject: Close combat..
> > >
> > > This simply prompted a long discussion about close combat..
> > In the next
> > > few weeks we hope to test a few of the rules to try and make you
> > > carefully choose where and when you initiate Close Combat.. <snip>
> > >
> > I know I shouldn't really get involved on this,
>
>Ah HA! Now we got you!! ;o)
>
> > but this
> > emaail peaked my
> > interest as it touches on one of the areas where I feel that
> > the SM/TL is
> > really rather weak. Basically, SM/TL relies almost completely
> > on attrition
> > as a method of deciding who wins a close combat (i.e. it's
> > pretty much 'last
> > mand standing').
>
>I didn't think about this whe the CC rules were discussed, but both you
>and the original poster are IMO right about this.
>
> > This can make them drag on for a bit. On the
> > other hand if
> > you read books on modern warfare, one of the things that they
> > emphasise is
> > that assaults tend to be bloody but brief, and that one side
> > or the other
> > will either run off or surrender very quickly. Both E40K and
> > now E:A try to
> > address this problem by ensuring that after a round of combat has been
> > fought there will always be a result, and this result will
> > force one side to
> > fall back away from the combat. In E:A this is done by having
> > _each_ side
> > roll 2D6. Then each player takes the higher of their two dice
> > rolls and adds
> > modifiers from the following chart. Why two dice? It makes
> > the result less
> > random than using a straaigh D6 while still allowing for some extreme
> > results.
> >
> > The player with the lower roll has to fall back (make a
> > double move away
> > from the enemy). If there is a tie then another round is fought
> > _immediately_ (very bloody ; )). I'm not sure how easily such
> > rules would
> > translate to the NetEpic, but you might want to give them a try...
> >
> > > 1.12.7 Assault Modifiers
> > > (cumulative)
> > > For each kill you have inflicted during the assault
> > > +1
> > > You have more units than the opposing formation
> > > +1
> > > You have more than twice as many units as the opposing
> > formation +1
> > <Snip modifiers for blast markers, perhaps give a +1 for having charge
> > orders?>
> >
>
>Elite: +1
>Fearless: +1
>Causes terror: +1
>
>This is IM(NSH)O worth testing; and I don't think it would be too hard
>to incorporate. Just make the roll after the first round has been
>fought, add the modifiers and apply result. Maybe as an optional rule?
>
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Jervis Johnson
> > Head Fanatic
> >
>
>Jyrki Saari
>
> > <<<LURK MODE RESTORED>>
>
>P.S. Thanks for the plastics!
>
>
>To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Hold kontakten med dine venner med MSN Messenger
http://messenger.msn.dk
Received on Sun May 18 2003 - 17:02:40 UTC