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

From: <nils.saugen_at_...>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:29:24 +0200

The ganging up has never been a problem actually. I've experienced that we
often lack movement to reach the entire enemy detachment, allowing us to
gang up anyway. But the ground rule is that first you have to place your
units 1 to 1, then 2 to 1, 3 to 1 (If you have any units left that is).

This might be much more complexe to explain than it is in practise, but here
we go!

Excample.

A full detachment of Roughriders charge up a hill with an objective held by
what remains of a marine tactical detachment (3 marines, 1 rihno) , the
marines have a squad of assault marines on charge orders within reach of
the hilltop.

The roughriders has got the initiative.

First the roughriders charge the marines (All are within range, 10 vs 4
units), first they are placed 1 to 1, then 2 to 1 and finally two marine
stands are attacked 3 to 1. Then the marine player moves in his assault
marines, leaving the rihnos out of the frey. He has to fill inn all 4
separate combats if he can! (At this point both movement and space comes
into accont, since there originally was 4 space marines this could be viewed
as 4 separate fights) The marine player attacks all four fights adding his
last two assault marines to the combats where his tacticals are outnumbered
3 to 1.

Then each combat is resolved. The tacticals had First fire orders,
statisticly the should score one hit and does so, killing one of the
Roughriders in one of the 3 to 1 situasjons. The rihno misses. We now have 3
situasjons of 2 to 1 and one of 3 to 1 (At this point we disregard the
assault marines!)

We then deside wich order the separate combats should be resolved in
(usually from left to right)

The roughrider player dictates the order of occurance within the 4 separate
combats. (The smart move is to attack first with the stand that also has
been attacked by a assault marine), for the first round of combat vs the
tactical both have 2d6, the second roughrider would have 3d6, and in the
instance with 3 to 1 the roughriders would roll 3d6. We then resolve all the
roughrider attacks.

Then the Assault marines get to attack, the all start on 3d6, even if the
roughrider they are attacking didn't get to roll against a tactical marine
(in the instances where the first roughrider beat the tactical). This is so
because we say thet even though you didn't roll, you still have taken part
in the close combat.

Ok so it gets a bit messy, but it workes very nice actually. It is much
clearer on a table top than in a text. we resolve cloce combat in the order
of occurance, dictated by the attacking player, splitting each combat into
separate fights resolving them invards and out, addin a d vs any unit that
has already parttaken in a colse combat situation.

Confused???? I think I'am????

Nils

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Ramos [SMTP:primarch_at_...]
> Sent: 16. oktober 2000 21:57
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> Subject: [NetEpic ML] RE: [Net Epic ML] Re: Core rule interpretations
>
> 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
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Received on Tue Oct 17 2000 - 07:29:24 UTC