RE: [NetEpic ML] Close combat interpretations: the good, the bad and what to do.Hi!
No. Only the forces listed are elite. Just because a unit is close combat does not mean it gains the ability to be elite. Elite remain few and far between for most armies so the great majority of troops retain the standard close combat of engaging once before ganging up. Only the few elite units may use selective pinning. I only added stiking scorpions and banshees which should have been there anyway due to an oversight. No other units deserve to be elite, if we use it indescriminately then we might as well use the other interpretation. With few elites it makes teh ability special.
Peter
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: eivind borgeteien
To: 'netepic_at_egroups.com'
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 6:32 AM
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Close combat interpretations: the good, the bad and what to do.
Hi!
Who should have the ability to selective enter CC? Beside those already listed as elite, some more would be added, those woluld in my mind be any assault troopers (sm/ig assault, berserkers and so on), bikes and cavalry. This is in short every unit you usually initiate CC with, and will in practise mean that the attacker 90% of the time can single out defenders.
Sorry, I'm against this. Lets stick with the two choiches presented earlier, make one the core rule and the other an optional.
Eivind
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Wolf [mailto:MasterDanielWolf_at_...]
Sent: 4. november 2000 20:39
To: netepic_at_egroups.com
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Close combat interpretations: the good, the
bad and what to do.
Hello everybody (and especial peter ;-),
firstly i thought that you would call the thread "the good, the bad and the
ugly". *lol* *lol*
Ok serious... ;-)
On CC i have to remark the following things:
1. I don't know why everybody has problems with cc and ganging up. In all my
games (especially the recent ones, where i took a close look at cc) we had
almost never a problem with ganging up and the same...
Most times it's a very clearly CC were one players has more models and thus
gangs up the minority.
Today i also had a little game with my brother (2400 points; tyranids vs.
Space Marines / imperial guard) and although his army was very cc-hefty, we
had no probs.
2. But we can give the idea of Peter a try, and take a look how elite troops
act with this new rules. The only thing which is very important is to ensure
that the rules do not become to complicated with so many exceptions and
"if's" and "then's". Epic should be a simple game (regarding rules
mechanics).
Bye
Daniel Wolf
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_...>
To: "Net Epic Group" <netepic_at_egroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 1:47 AM
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Close combat interpretations: the good, the bad and
what to do.
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
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/2/_/7255/_/973367061/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
eGroups Sponsor
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Received on Mon Nov 06 2000 - 15:02:28 UTC