Hi!
Thats a very good point Eivind. I was originally inclined to lower them by 2
points, but then again we used the different interpretation of close combat,
although truth be told Darius and Ed used your interpretaion (which seems to
be in the majority).
Give us feed back on how the battle goes with the -1 CAF reduction and the
alternate interpretation of close combat rules, you may have a point since
if you have to engage all before doubling up it becomes considerably more
difficult to take a necron assault warrior out.
Ed and Darius also try this out,(if you play before my next visit).
Peter
>From: "Eivind Borgeteien" <eivind.borgeteien_at_...>
>Reply-To: netepic_at_egroups.com
>To: netepic_at_egroups.com
>Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: Core rule interpretations
>Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:56:49 -0000
>
>The way we play, that you have to attack a whole detechment 1 on 1
>before doubling up makes units with good caf even better.
>
>Thats why we have a hard time killing necrons in CC, and thats why I
>have suggested a reduction of 2 in their caf. If you could "single
>out" units, a reduction of 1 would be sufficient.
>
>We will try a reduction of 1 in caf tonight, but I expect my beloved
>squats to take a serious beating.
>
>It is very difficult to discuss CAF on new units if we have two
>different ways of resolving CC. We have to agree upon one!
>
>Eivind
>--- In netepic_at_egroups.com, jyrki.saari_at_n... wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > I agree in principle, but it's still too vague about what happens
> > > with multiple units, especially when weird situations crop up
>(i.e.
> > > one unit contacts two enemy ones, then an allied unit arrives but
>can
> > > only move to contact one of the two enemy units etc.).
> > >
> > > Either we lump everything together (but there's a potential
> > > "cheesiness problem", like using a fast, large and cheap unit to
> > > "span into contact" with several enemy ones and use the trick to
>make
> > > an elite CC unit join combat with all enemy units at once), or we
> > > specify rules to solve the problem.
> > >
> >
> > We might say that one detachment, no matter what the size, can only
>charge
> > one detachment. This leads to (at least) one problem, however, I
>can see a
> > whole clan of Orks being forced to charge an aspect warrior unit...
>Although
> > it is kind of Orky (Awright, ladz, now we give dose pansies a a good
> > stomping, WAAAGHHHH!). Maybe an addition that if the charging
>detachment
> > outnumbers the charged by more than 2:1 then it can charge multiple
> > detachments.
> >
> > Damn, this is surprisingly difficult.
> >
> > As for the pairing, I experimented with a method, but unfortunately
>it
> > requires some _bookkeeping_ to determine who is in CC with who, so
>there's
> > got to be a better way to do it. C'mon, people. Get those little
>gray cells
> > processing ;-)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Luca Lettieri
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor
> > > -------------------------~-~>
> > > Tellme Sports. Tellme Stocks. Tellme News. Just Tellme.
> > > Call 1-800-555-TELL and hear everything. For info visit:
> > > http://click.egroups.com/1/9529/6/_/7255/_/971877693/
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -------_->
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> > >
> >
> >
> > Jyrki Saari
> >
> > -There is no such thing as free lunch because eating takes time and
>time is
> > money.
>
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
Received on Thu Oct 19 2000 - 13:37:36 UTC