Re: [NetEpic ML] [5.0] Eldar Storm Serpent

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:06:40 -0400

Hi!

cibernyam wrote:

>Hi,
>
>As I understand it, there are two wraithgates, one near the storm serpent
>(IN) and another one far away (OUT) both in LOS, a given distance (50 - 75
>cm). Both gates are placed in fire phase of turn 1 (or the first turn that
>the player decides to use the Storm Serpent, I'll suppose it will be during
>the first turn in this example). In turn 2, during movement phase, troops
>'embark' from either side (IN or OUT) with a cost of 5 cm and must be
>assigned orders for turn 3. Finally, in turn 3 they 'disembark' on the
>opposing side, scattered, with the orders placed during mov. phase of turn
>2, with full movement (be it charge or advance) minus 5 cm spent leaving the
>gate. If Storm Serpent is destroyed before troops would get out in turn 3
>mov. phase, all traveling troops are destroyed.
>
>Did I understand it correctly? I think it is a bit complicated at first, and
>thus, here is some FAQ meat I think could be important:
>
>
Troops can "embark" on the first turn the gate opens, but cannot
"disembark" until the next turn (one turn delay)

>Must Storm Serpent keep LOS with both gates all the time until troops have
>crossed?
>
>
Yes.

>Can Storm Serpent move during transport?
>
>
No.

>Is it possible to deactivate the gate at any moment? Or only during firing
>phase?
>
>
Only during the firing phase.

>Can a Gate be deactivated and a new one created in the same turn (Supposing
>both actions occur in the same phase)?
>
>
Yes.

>Can an eldar player deactivate voluntarily the gates having friendly troops
>in transit?
>
>
No.

>If troops from both sides cross the gate, do they get to fight in the
>middle?
>
>
Only friendly troops can use the gate. Making the gate accessed by both
sides reduces the units effectiveness and introduces to many variables
to properly make rules for.

>What happens if the game ends and troops are still inside the gate? do they
>count as destroyed?
>
>
No.

Peter
Received on Mon Apr 18 2005 - 18:06:40 UTC