RE: [Net Epic ML] Re: Core rule interpretations

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:56:49 -0400

Hi!


---> We play it so that an atacker must engage all the stands in the
enemy detachment with 1 stand before he can double up, then by two
before he can do it 3-1. This is provided that he can has movent to
reach all. If not, then he have to engage as many as he has within
reach.

Hehe this will make Hellreich happy. Problem is some very good close combat
troops that come in small numbers need to be assaulted asymmetrically to
insure some degree of success, if I attack terminators with IG by this
matter they will all die with exception of the one or two guys that get to
go three on one, even then with such a high CAF the termies got a good
chance of pulling off a clean sweep.

I like this even distribution on paper, but in practice I have some
reservations.

--->This is my main grudge against the epic game system, the CC gets
too chaotic. We think it is best to resolve them in the order they
occur.

Player A moves his det A1 onto CC with unit B1, then player B moves
his det B2 to the rescue, into CC wit A1. Player A moves up his
reservedet A2 into CC with the rest. Quite a mess isn't it?

First we resolve CC A1/B1, A was the attacker, then he has already
chosen who to attack. Then we take CC B2/A1, bearing in mind who in
det A that has already been in CC. (Now B is the attacker) Then we
take CC A2 with the rest, following the same procedure.

Kind of chaotic, but it works.

How do you get extra d6 for ganging up if the original attacker is evenly
distributed as above? Usually you need a couple of detachments to do this,
how do you deal with this? Maybe an example would help, it sounds
intriguing.

I have thought of many ways around this, unfortunately most involve a major
rule changes, which may not be what we want. The main problem is that troops
tend to charge as individual units and not detachments as they should. Also
troops on the actual objective are singled out to receive more than one
attacker, not that this is bad, but it compounds the problem.

One way I thought of resolving this was that to de-emphasize the actual
placement of models for a group to group approach. This means that as long
as half or more of the units in a group reach close combat then all are
engaged, both sides commit as many reserves to they combat as you wish. Then
pair off all the models in the combat, strongest unit versus most strongest
enemy unit, down the line, with the player with more models ganging up as it
best suits the players, then resolve each combat normally. The survivors
would be placed within 5-10cm of the "center" of the combat with ties still
in base to base contact. This draws the attention from knit picking what
models are in base to base contact to the whole group attacking, singling
out cannot be done and numerical advantage gives a edge (although not
large).

There's no easy way around this one, I guess each group adapts what it likes
best.

Peter
Received on Mon Oct 16 2000 - 19:56:49 UTC