Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: Rule for Outnumbering

From: <eivind.borgeteien_at_...>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:36:30 +0100

<snip>
 I agree, some definitions over "base to base contact" should be
> specified somewhere. By the way, which is the maximum number of
> stands that can assault an infantry stand ? Four or Six ?
<snip>

We use a simple rule of thumb saying that at least half of the ATTACKING stand have to touch the defending stand. Or in the case of a large difference in size, like a superheavy attacking infantry, half of the DEFENDING stand have to be touched by the attacking stand.

It really covers most situations.

Eivind
>
> Fra: "Stephane Montabert" <kotrin_at_...>
> Dato: 2004/02/19 Thu AM 09:28:51 CET
> Til: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Emne: [NetEpic ML] Re: Rule for Outnumbering
>
> > After many years or playing this game and hundreds of games under
> my
> > belt, intuitively I think the best solution "gamewise" is two
> simply
> > curtail "ganging up" on stands until all other stands within charge
> > range are engaged.
>
> I think none of us can't even come close to your game belly :o) so
> you certainly have a strong point by definition...
>
> It seems to be a variant of the proposal #1, but taking attacker
> charge range into account rather than 6cm radius around the unit
> attempted to be outnumbered - unless I am mistaken.
>
> > Its the simplest, easiest and in my view "fairest" solution.
> > It means attackers will have to assault in force and cheese
> > tactics of overwhelming one or two stands on the objective while
> > ignoring nearby ones would be eliminated with this approach. This
> would
> > favor horde armies like orcs, IG and tyranids, but thats okay.
> Balancing
> > that would be small but very good units like terminators and eldar
> > aspect warriors which now become a more difficult proposition to
> > attackers since they need to be ganged up on.
>
> I agree, but I see a little drawback here. The examples you raise are
> valid one, with foot troops of horde armies. Since their charge
> movement is usually 20 cm, and since each unit is reasonably
> numerous, they can achieve outnumbering according to the rule you
> propose because the number of enemies within 20 cm is not too much.
>
> On the other hand, if you take a unit with a wild charge move (Eldar
> jetbikes and their 70cm charge range!) it means that this unit will
> NEVER be able to outnumber anyone, simply because there will be too
> many eligible enemy units within range. You have ten jetbikes, you
> want to assault four madboyz 10cm away, but you can't fight 2:1
> because there is a full Ork company 65cm away you should assault
> too :o)
>
> Or did I miss something?
>
> > As far as how many units can engage "x" unit. I would make the
> general
> > rule that for a model to "fit" and thus be eligible for close
> combat,
> > most of its front base need to be in contact (thus only a corner of
> the
> > base that touches is not enough). The idea of a limit of attackers
> per
> > unit size can be introduced as a alternate/optional rule or
> interpreation.
>
> I agree, some definitions over "base to base contact" should be
> specified somewhere. By the way, which is the maximum number of
> stands that can assault an infantry stand ? Four or Six ?
>
> Stephane
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Feb 19 2004 - 10:36:30 UTC