Re: [NetEpic ML] Core Vote

From: warprat <warprat_at_...>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 22:50:59 -0800

Hi All!


I guess it all depends on your definition of a formation, and what the
coherancy rules mean to you, personally.

To me, the five man stands do not represent the way troops are deployed
on the battlefield.

Rather, they are an attractive, and easy way, to pick up a group of very
small figures.

To me, when my forces are on the battle field, they are mostly deployed
in long lines. This is so the same shot will not pass through two
people. And they arn't grouped up, so shells can't wipe them all out
easily in a few shots.

Although I hate the look of the new rectange stands, a line of troops is
probably more correct.

If you streach the rectangle stands even more, to 6cm, this would now
equal the square stands, spaced 6cm apart. The reason for the coherancy
rule, in my opinion. And the reason for the 6cm limit on the space
between stands.

So, you can see, in my view, that two formations of troops, able to pin
each other, can not pierce the other's line. The line formation is not
best represented by a series of squares. Squares that can squeeze
through enemy line formations.


 
> 4) If I space my infantry 6cm apart from each other, in a
> line, does
> this mean the enemy must attack each stand in the
> detachment, before
> moving through it? Or, can the enemy penetrate the line,
> without moving
> within 1cm of a stand.
>
> ---> He can penetrate your line if he can get between the
> units without getting within 1 cm of either of your stands.
> Skimmers and inf with jumppack can fly over them either way.
>
>



Sorry, this next bit still seems a little open to abuse. Not that I
mind so much, being a proponent of "Free Close Combat."



> What if the second detachment does not have the movement to
> engage new
> enemies?
>
> --->Then they can double up on units within their range



Warprat ;)
Received on Fri Nov 03 2000 - 06:50:59 UTC