Re: [NetEpic ML] Comments over 5.0 rulebook

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 10:03:12 -0400

Hi!

>I prefer one big book giving many options to solve same issues than one thin
>book with one rule for each issue written in it. Specially when an important
>sector of players do prefer other ways to deal with a situation. I think a
>good politic is to add options if they are worthy (democratic polls do),
>even when they are redundant. Each player has its own criterium to deal
>with each problem with the rule he considers the best. This is not GW,
>there's no word of god in the rules but (a lot of ) a critic point of view
>with a real open mind approach.
>
This is the philosophy behind this revision. In previous one we would
pick ONE alternative and call it "the way it should be done". But we
know well that members have expressed they have their own ways of doing
things for certain rules. So why not list the rule and its alternate
interpretations? As mentioned, its not our custom to impose rules, but
to give options. So I think, we'll list many ideas and let players sort
it out.

>All discussions I remember about this topic yielded no good results at all.
>All ruling for this topic yielded cheesy results. The previous rule can be
>easily cheesed out. Personally I prefer to allow to charge stands from
>different units as long as unit coherency is maintained. I do agree, however
>that a similar rule as shooting to HQ is explicited, hence, to engage an HQ
>you first have to engage all closer models from the same battle group.
>
Yes, there is no easy solution. I agree the easiest restriction is to
apply that HQ units should be the last engaged, just like the
restrictions to firing at them. As with most cases, we'll list
alternatives and let players decide.

>Can you shot indirect fire to an unseen objective? You shoot where you
>imagine/expect enemy units. Thus, if you csn point the approximate position
>of one unit 100 cm away, you should be able to do the same 20 - 40 cm away.
>Once shot, you cannot rectify the target position and thus the deviation. If
>you charge, you can correct the enemies positions as you get closer to them.
>
Artillery is a different matter, since you CAN plot fire to that which
you cant see. But can you really charge and assault units that you dont
see at the beginning of a charge? A charge is a visceral, emotional
thing. Seeing the target of it is important. I think you should be able
to see them before a charge is taken.

>As a house rule, we always assumed that a unit of greater pinning class can
>break through enemy lines of 1 lower class with a 4+ roll.
>
Your house rule is similar to what I propose, the difference being the
"minor" obsticle would be destroyed or shunted aside depending on the
success of the roll.

>As a general rule, I propose that Titans do not care at all about infantry.
>They are Titans.
>
Yes, but we need to determine what happens when they are in the way,
squashed or shunted aside?

>Wasn't that clear? Vehicles cannot fight CC against units inside impassable
>terrain (like buildings). Still, CC is not only ramming and headbutting on
>opponents but short range firefights, so from this POV it should be
>possible.
>
No very clear. Thing is if infantry hides in buildings, can vehicles
really assault them? They can shoot at them (which is what would happen
in real life), but physically enter an area they can to engage them?

>Maybe "point-defense weapons" or "antipersonnel weapon" ability for weapons?
>
Both of those names are good.

>IMHO bail out should only affect infantry inside vehicles.I cannot see
>twenty vindicators hurrying to leave a capitol imperialis in a few seconds.
>
I must say you got a strong point there. I would say bailing out is a
"infantry thing". Opinions?

Peter
Received on Sat Feb 14 2004 - 14:03:12 UTC