Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: Rule for Outnumbering

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:27:43 -0400

Hi!

Stephane Montabert wrote:

>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.
>
Yes, similar.

>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?
>
No. Your example is valid and a drawback of this method. Of course such
units can be given a "fast attack" skill where such a restriction would
be lifted.

>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 ?
>
Four infantry stands could engage one infantry stand. I agree that base
to base contact should be clearly defined.

Peter
Received on Thu Feb 19 2004 - 21:27:43 UTC