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

From: <jyrki.saari_at_...>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:45:13 +0300

 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: EXT Peter Ramos [mailto:primarch_at_...]
Sent: 20. October 2000 1:40
To: netepic_at_egroups.com
Subject: [NetEpic ML] RE: [Net Epic ML] Re: Core rule interpretations


Hi!
 
Point taken and thus the original interpretation, but it does devaluate CAF
done in this way and it also promotes some dubious tactics. It does explain
some of the impressions with people and certain units, I have long ago
stopped fearing Eldar infantry and even consider them "not a good buy" since
I always sidestep the issue by engaging two stands of the 4 breaking them
and ignoring the remaining two. Sounds like a sound tactic, but is it fair?
I'm not so sure, realistically two detachments just go at each other,
leaving some unengaged would be a bad thing in the real world, but there is
no penalty in epic, with this other alternative they act more like groups
and only movement and adequate use of reserves dictates the victor.
 
 
 
JS: Besides, the defender can move too. In the above case, I don't think the
unengaged aspect warriors would just sit still and watch the show when their
buddies are being chewed up by a horde of other troops. When playing a turn
based game it is easy to forget that everything is actually happening _at
the same time_, the 1 on 1 rule IMO includes nicely the fact that the
defender is reacting to the charge.
 
 
 
I am of two minds with this, but I sway towards engaging everything before
doubling up because it truly makes good close combat troops good at what
they do, otherwise they are too easy to take out with selective pinning.
 
Peter
  

Jyrki Saari

-There is no such thing as free lunch because eating takes time and time is
money.
Received on Fri Oct 20 2000 - 06:45:13 UTC