Sounding a tad complex now... can we not simplify it somewhat?
Tom Webb
Webmaster of the EPICentre
http://www.netepic.org - Home of Netepic, EPIC:
Armageddon, VOID and Heresy
----- Original Message -----
From: <jyrki.saari_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 1:45 PM
Subject: RE: RE: [NetEpic ML] Digest Number 1216
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext [mailto:eivind.borgeteien_at_...]
> > Sent: 19 May, 2003 15:06
> > To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: RE: [NetEpic ML] Digest Number 1216
> >
> >
> > I have a nagging suspicion that supression and such CC rules
> > are very hard to introduce under the Netepic rules. Its hard
> > to get them ballanced.
> >
>
> Hard: yes. Impossible: no. Unless the premise is that Net Epic does not
need any new rules in which case any suggestion automatically fails by
default.
>
> > I picture an orkmob ganging up on a detachment of SM. One
> > would expect that the orks lost a couple of more units than
> > the SM. I cant really picture an intire orkmob withdrawing
> > just because it has lost 5 or 6 stands of a mob perhaps
> > containing over 20.
> >
>
> Like said: there are bonuses for outnumbering the enemy. Besides, once the
BASIC system has been tested exceptions can be made, if needed. Like: if
enemy is wiped out there's no need to withdraw. Or if you outnumber the
enemy by 2x or more _after_ combat resolution you don't need to withdraw
even if you lose. Etc.
>
> The design flow should be from general cases to the specific. Not vice
versa.
>
> > Eivind
> [snip]
> >
>
> Jyrki Saari
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
Received on Mon May 19 2003 - 13:02:54 UTC