Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: Close combat interpretations: the good, the bad and what to do.

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 21:19:59 -0500

Hi!

True, to defend against this have a unit on first fire close by to shoot as
they come in. Then again I usually use this near the end of a game when such
units have been weeded out.

Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave " <warprat_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 8:22 PM
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: Close combat interpretations: the good, the bad
and what to do.


> Hi Peter!
>
> I've recently discoverd, via discussion on this board, that "Pete's
> Hanovarian square" tactic is not very effective against Skimmers,
> Flyers, Jump Troops, and many vehichles. ;)
>
> However,.....I think your idea is VERY good!
>
>
>
>
> A couple of things to possibly add:
>
> 1) Make Super Elite Heavily Armed and Armored Units with fixed saving
> throws equal to vehicles for pinning.
>
> IE: Terminators, Exarchs, Dark Reapers, etc....
>
>
> 2) Not allow piercing of enemy formations (only where enemy units
> would normally be able to pin units moving through,) unless enemy
> units have been pinned first. Per the rules from the Adeptus
> Titanicus rule book.
>
>
> Great Idea, Commisar Ramos!
>
> Warprat ;)
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In netepic_at_egroups.com, "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_b...> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >
> > Nothing engenders conversation than a good ol' discussion about the
> core mechanics. The latest one is regarding which interpretation to
> follow. As everything in life there's two sides to the coin let's go
> in to them regarding the two alternatives:
> >
> > 1. Attackers can selectively engage troops and gang up on specific
> units while not engaging others.
> >
> > The good.
> >
> > A certain amount of tactics goes into assaulting a position by this
> method, more so if you are attacking with a smaller elite force.
> Anything that adds some thought to the game is a good thing and there
> is a certain amount of punch and counter punch to be done. Players
> must more cautiously use reserve since a small force may attack a
> flank of a superior foe and leave the others out to dry. The
> resolution is dirty and chaotic, but an aura of uncertainty as to the
> outcome keeps players guessing. Also armies that rely on small hard
> hitting troops can really maximize what they do best (i.e aspect
> warriors)
> >
> > The bad
> >
> > The so called "tactics" does permit an unhealthy amount of cheese
> mongering since you can by pass a carefully laid out defense by
> pinning the few models that compose one flank and take the objective
> with a second unit without much risk or loss. This also provokes
> cheese from the defense too, since the defending player can use such
> infamous tactics as "Pete's Hanovarian square" tactic, where you
> place your models side by side in a square (or circle) and place one
> unit in the interior of the position to hold the objective. There is
> no way the opponent can charge and engage that last stand in one
> turn. Many a game has been lost this way with one stand holding the
> objective in a sea of enemy models. It's a legal move but cheesy in
> extreme. In addition to enengage some and not others leads to highly
> unrealistic methods of making VP's. If the game is constantly in
> motion, it kinda sucks to see 3 out of 5 models engaged on purpose so
> as to break them. also combat tend to drag out to much with the
> charge and counter charge that occurs in subsequent turns.
> >
> > 2. Attackers MUST engage all units within reach once before ganging
> up occurs.
> >
> > The good
> >
> > Combat is treated more as a group-to-group affair as in essence it
> should be. Numbers mean something, as a numerically superior foe
> should and can have an edge under these rules. Combat tends to be
> slighly more decisive and ends in a turn or two. Its more orderly and
> easier to keep track of. It also avoids cheesy ploys regarding
> positioning of troops like above.
> >
> > The bad
> >
> > A certain amount of thought is lost in this process and thus some
> tactics. The group-to-group affair eliminates the wise opponents
> capitalizing on the fioes bad deployment. The defender has to think
> less on WHERE to place his troops and thus the attacker has more of a
> burden in figuring out how much more troops he needs to bring in. You
> also eliminate the ability of small groups of elite troops to strike
> at one point in the line. Its funny but these troops are actually
> better defending that attacking under these rules. A squad of eldar
> banshees could never hope to overcome all of a IG platton on the
> attack since it can't outnumber it, but an attacker would need to
> dilute its superiority in numbers against them before ganging up when
> attacking them. Quite odd. Also this method requires clearing up a
> lot of specific situations and anomalies
> >
> >
> > Is there a solution?
> >
> > Perhaps....
> >
> > Why not MERGE the two? How? Easy....
> >
> > There has been some thought on elite troops and that there status
> isn't much of a boon. Why not designate elite status, in addition to
> its current ability versus titans, as troops who can selectively pin?
> >
> > Thus the bulk of epic troops are the mindless drones the background
> makes them to be: IG tactics, ork boys, eldar guardians all would
> charge and enegage all before ganaging up.
> >
> > The elite troops however are smarter, they see teh battlefield and
> exploit the holes in the line.
> >
> > This has the advantage of using something already present in epic
> without fancy rules and exceptions.
> >
> > All good? Not quite.
> >
> > It requires assigning elite status to a few more units, but not
> that many more and this is mainly a editing issue me and Daniel can
> handle.
> >
> > Well? Speak up inquiring minds need to know!
> >
> > Peter
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
Received on Sat Nov 04 2000 - 02:19:59 UTC