Hi!
Although my group has used the one on one rule for CC, we, at least I,
haven't so much experience fighting orcs. The orcs fights in big clans in
stead of smaller detachments.
How do you resolve this if you have to go one on one on each detachment
before doubling up? If you have to do this, most of the time, you cant
double up.
Eivind
-----Original Message-----
From: warprat [mailto:warprat_at_...]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 3:14 AM
To: netepic_at_egroups.com
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] RE: [Net Epic ML] Re: Core rule
interpretations
Hi Peter!
When I use Striking Scorpions or Howling Banshies, I frequently pair
them up with Wave Serpents. This "classic" combination has always
worked very well. Now that's "selective pinning!"
Eldar Aspect warriors detachments ARE small, and the break points ARE
average. But, this is in keeping with the nature and history of the
Eldar race. Speedy, strong and proud, but at the same time fragil.
The "fragil" comes from the unit organization, not the various stands
and models themselves. Each stand is very good individually.
The Eldar race, as a whole, is in decline, hence the fragil nature.
Each stand lost, is a further weakening, of this once proud race.
Yes, you can selectively pin the Eldar. But the Eldar have many smaller
formations, mobile formations, to counter pin. With the greater number
of detachments, many armies with fewer detachments (Orcs, Space Wolves,
etc...) will be forced to watch, as the more numerous Eldar Army
detachments finish the turn uncountered. More "selective pinning."
On the flip side, a Spirit Host doesn't have to even worry about losses.
You only break when the Warlock is killed.
In the end, each army has its own strenths and weaknesses, ballanced by
point costs. I really don't see a problem here.
Comments?
Warprat ;)
Peter Ramos wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: quester [mailto:quester666_at_...]
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 4:48 PM
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: Core rule interpretations
>
> Eivind Borgeteien <eivind.borgeteien_at_...>
> wrote:
>
> your 1 on 1 thing is what makes it hard to kill them, you
> lock out one of the tactics of the game like this by aplying
> a rule thats not there, makes it hard to over power a
> defender if you have to attack his whole line and not just a
> week spot....
>
> 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.
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to:
> netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
> "Is it time to play?"
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to:
> netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
> eGroups Sponsor
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
###########################################
This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange.
For more information, connect to
http://www.F-Secure.com/
Received on Tue Oct 31 2000 - 08:25:39 UTC