RE: [NetEpic ML] Digest Number 1216

From: <jyrki.saari_at_...>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 10:07:51 +0300

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Eivind Borgeteien [mailto:eivind.borgeteien_at_...]
> Sent: 17 May, 2003 00:10
> 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.
>

From a gamer POV yes, but the troops are unlikely to hink about it like that. When Smith the IG grunt is fighting in CC with big, bad chaos marines who howl for his blood and sees 20 of his buddies (4 stands) go down is he _really_ going to think: "That's not too bad; we've still got 5 more before we reach break point."?

> Morale and breakpoint should have something to do with this also.
>

That one is factored in the "+1 for every kill" modifier. Those who kill more gain confidence while those who get minced lose it. Also, +1 for the elite status and +1 for being fearsome would address that one.

The one problem where the "morale check after CC" -rule has always been stopped is that it increases the power of high morale troops while decreasing the power of low morale troops without altering the point values. That's why I based my experimental suppression rules on the amount of firepower rather than morale checks.

> Eivind
>
[snip]

Jyrki Saari
Received on Mon May 19 2003 - 07:07:51 UTC