well we did lower the CAF last week by 1 making it +4 instead of +5, plus
the right cost of 750pts, and they worked out fine. they really anit no
stronger then CA termies like this, and thus they should be I wont budge on
this one, LOL :-)! They are wear they should be now, but me and Peter are
disputing if they should be able to have a move by foot or just the warp
jump move, I like to just allow them to move by warp jump thus some will
scatter when they charge. Making them a little tad weaker without taking
anything away from them. And if we do the Warp Jump rules like Peter said
with one roll, you only scatter on a roll of one for a 40cm move not bad And
you get lost in the Warp on rolls under one. The rule will work as such you
pick a point were you want to warp jump to. THEN YOU MEASURE how far it is,
then roll one die for each model. For models that jump up to 40cm on a roll
of one you are disoriented and scatter 3d6cm for mechs and 1d6cm for troops,
since they are smaller less power could effect them while they jump so less
scatter from point of enter, For every 10cm over 40cm you recive a -1
penalty. (e.g. if you jump 60cm, you would recive a -2 to your roll -1 for
each 10cm over 40cm so would need to roll 4+ to make the jump without
scatter and 3+ would make you scatter, under 3+ would be lost in the Warp
remove model). Vanguards will add +1 to jumps they lead, while the Mage will
add +2, all the other rules for Vanguards and Mages will remain the same
except the see warp gate power of the Mage this will add +1 to jumps for
distance over 40cm all the other rules of this power will stay as is.
----- Original Message -----
From: peter ramos <ramospeter_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: Core rule interpretations
> 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.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>
____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
Download Now
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633
___________________________________________________________
Received on Fri Oct 20 2000 - 00:23:14 UTC