I don't agree.
If we include both, then we cant have a proper discussion of CAF on new
units on this list. Only one aproach should be included in the Core Rules,
the other should be an optional rule!
Then people can freely choose what to use, but still know what we base the
descissions on this list upon, and make their own houserules on this. Thats
what the Optional rules is all about isn't it?
We ablolutely can not have two sets of core rules! We have to talk the same
language on this list, else it easily becomes obsolete!
Eivind
-----Original Message-----
From: peter ramos [mailto:ramospeter_at_...]
Sent: 31. oktober 2000 14:43
To: netepic_at_egroups.com
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] RE: [Net Epic ML] Re: Core rule
interpretations
Hi!
I have decided that it is best to include both approaches to the close
combat interpretation into the core rules since it is best to let individual
groups decide what approach they like best. Both approaches have pros and
cons to them it seems more like a matter of taste.
Peter
>From: "dardman" <dardman_at_...>
>Reply-To: netepic_at_egroups.com
>To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] RE: [Net Epic ML] Re: Core rule interpretations
>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:26:33 -0500
>
>That is a problem you must solve when you play the Orks. It is one of their
>advantages but remember they have a 10cm command rule. IG have similar
>units with the Rough rider and beastmen companies and squads.
>Darius
_________________________________________________________________________
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
###########################################
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 - 14:20:53 UTC