Hi,
In our games we use a simple house rule no more than 2
units can engage 1 unit of infantry class; no more
than 4 to 1 superheavy / knight class; no more than 6
to 1 pretorian and no more than 8 to 1 titan.
Mete
--- Stephane Montabert <kotrin_at_...> wrote:
> EUREKA!!
>
> Hi all!
>
> In recent days, we have had a discussion about
> outnumbering and rules of engagement. If I am
> completely sure that some ruling is required to keep
> any interest in high CAF, low number elite troops, I
> wasn't too happy with my draft rule proposal - not
> bad, but a bit cumbersome. The part about the
> "detachment" annoyed me the most. It was leaving the
> question of command units unsolved, and also
> required
> an arbitrary division of ennemy models which may not
> be natural at all - for example, if two detachment
> were intermingled together, to get outnumbering you
> would have had to engage one while carefully
> avoiding
> the other. Even if both were made of the same
> troops.
>
> But yesterday I had a new idea witch seemed a lot
> more
> clear, simple, natural, and easy to understand. Hope
> you'll think that too :o) The rule should be:
>
> "Outnumbering means having more than one model of
> the
> assaulting unit fighting a single ennemy model."
>
> "Outnumbering can occur on a target enemy model only
> if all reachable enemy models within 6cm of the
> target
> are already engaged in close-combat, by assaulting
> unit or another."
>
> - This rules means that outnumbering somehow happens
> at the heart of the melee, which is quite natural.
> - No need for special rules for command unit, they
> are
> vulnerable depending of their exposure.
> - Enemy models count as engaged if they are
> assaulted
> by the activated unit, or has been engaged by
> previously activated units.
> - The 6cm refers of course to unit coherency. So
> overextending a unit makes it much more prone to be
> locally outnumbered by an attacker.
> - The word "reachable" allows to ignore models out
> of
> reach (Overlord airship) or subject to assault
> restriction, whatever the reason - because they are
> out of charge movement, for example. It also allows
> a
> merge of this rule with whatever optional rule of
> engagement is chosen.
>
> Input, comments ? I'll update my page with this one
> ASAP.
>
> Best regards, Stephane
>
> =====
> Stephane "The Guy Without A Nickname" Montabert
> "It's better to enlarge the game than to restrict
> the players." -- Eric Wujcik
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing
> online.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Received on Wed Feb 18 2004 - 12:53:32 UTC