Well, the reason for us wanting to change this is twofold. First we will cut
time by rolling just once for each detachment, as you know one of the main
reasons for us not playing as often as we like, is that Epic is rather
timeconsuming. This change would make the game more time efficient, but it's
is just a bonus we get from the change. The main reason for this is that if
you have to roll for each unit under the template, you're almost certainly
going to miss on one of the units, making the rest of the detachment stop.
This seems sort of unfair. So what we are saying is that we have two options
in this case, either roll for the detachment, or let the units breake
cohernecy and leave their trapped comerads behind. Since we don't like to
mess with the cohernecy rules, we'd rather roll for each detachment. Now
we're going to have to test that over a couple of games, and if we find that
it works alright, we'll propose that change to the rules. We might want to
do some minor variations to the rules of course, in order to compensate for
some of the obvious loss of power for the slann/necron player!
Nils
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karlsen Rune [SMTP:rune.karlsen_at_...]
> Sent: 12. oktober 2000 08:21
> To: 'netepic_at_egroups.com'
> Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Re: Slann probable change.
>
> I don't understand the logic behind wanting one roll on the disruptor
> missiles. The missiles are entirely in thread with other barrage
> weapons. A field such as this would affect different people/vehicles
> differently, based on their anatomy/placement/shielding and so forth.
> This random element applies to all other barrage weapons as well,
> and i can't see why the missiles should be any different. This is
> the Slann's only barrage weapon (if you exclude the titans), it's
> not like they have oodles of them...
>
> Rune
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eivind Borgeteien [mailto:eivind.borgeteien_at_...]
> Sent: 11. oktober 2000 17:15
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: Slann probable change.
>
>
> --- In netepic_at_egroups.com, "peter ramos" <ramospeter_at_h...> wrote:
> >
> The disruptor missiles. Nils and I wil have a game next week to check
> out if we rather should have one roll pr detachment under the
> template rather than each stand.
>
> We let you know our conclusion
>
> Eivind
> Hi!
> >
> > Yes, well leave them in the optimal section, and we will make sure
> the -1CAF
> > does not apply.
> >
> > Everyone else agree?
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> > >From: Karlsen Rune <rune.karlsen_at_e...>
> > >Reply-To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> > >To: "'netepic_at_egroups.com'" <netepic_at_egroups.com>
> > >Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Slann probable change.
> > >Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:16:26 +0200
> > >
> > >Hi :)
> > >
> > >1. Yes, they arent really needed, although they are rather cool.
> > >Leave them as optional?
> > >
> > >2. Agreed, although the Necron Assaults would not incur the -1CAF
> > >penalty the mechs do due to their size.
> > >
> > >Rune
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: peter ramos [mailto:ramospeter_at_h...]
> > >Sent: 11. oktober 2000 15:06
> > >To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> > >Subject: [NetEpic ML] Slann probable change.
> > >
> > >
> > >Hi!
> > >
> > >It seems that some of the ideas I put in have favor amongst the
> slann
> > >players. Can the major slann players agree on the following:
> > >
> > >1. Scarabs cards get fused with necron assault, their stats costs
> and
> > >everything else stays the same
> > >
> > >2. they keep their warp jump with the rules already in place for
> slann
> > >mechs
> > >
> > >I have to agree with Rune that we need to stop making changes, I
> think the
> > >Slann are where they need to be and local house rules can patch
> things to
> > >taste. the above are pretty minor changes, actually more like
> > >clarifications
> > >
> > >since most have used the jump rules anyway.
> > >
> > >Is this acceptable?
> > >
> > >It seems this will be the last change since no complaints about
> other units
> > >have arisen amongst the slann players.
> > >
> > >Let me know what everyone thinks.
> > >
> > >Peter
> >
> >_____________________________________________________________________
> ____
> > >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
> http://www.hotmail.com.
> > >
> > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> > >http://profiles.msn.com.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ___
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
> http://www.hotmail.com.
> >
> > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> > http://profiles.msn.com.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Received on Thu Oct 12 2000 - 06:48:22 UTC