Re: [NetEpic ML] Invisible Lictors

From: warprat <warprat_at_...>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 19:28:58 -0800

Hi All!

In the pure sense, Salzanzibar is right. If the game COULD be played in
a real life way, Scouts would be invisable. On a computer, it would
work great.

Unfortunatly, many players would be unable to be trusted with invisable
units, unlike Salzanzibar, so invisability wouldn't work well in all
games. It would be hard for me to ignore thier position, like many
others, I suspect. There is also the problem of cost, invisable Lictors
should be worth a lot more than they are now.

In our next game, Salzanzibar is going to try out his new Tyranid army.
We were going to give some extra point as a handicap, because he hasn't
played NetEpic as nuch as others. Now we have an opertunity for a
win-win resolution. Salzanzibar will get to try out his invisability
idea for his extra points.

After the battle, we will discuss the merits of invisability, and try to
reach agreement. That, may or may not be possible, but at least there
is a chance for Salzanzibar, and that is always good.

Warprat ;)




salzanzibar_at_... wrote:
>
> I believe the idea of invisibility was taken to an absolute extreme and hence
> out of context to the topic at hand. If the Player opposing Tyranids cannot
> target the models in ANY way shape or form until they are spotted via an
> model from the Players side within 25cm, it is inherently obvious that it is
> undetectable by normal methods and is in a sense invisible to the Player. If
> the units are to be fielded on the board, the advantage of this
> characteristic is lost completely and will be used against the inherit
> ability of the Lictors to its full extent. The are some "subtle" differences
> between the Lictor and any scouts are there not? Like the fact that the scout
> is merely trying to remain hidden from observation to provide ordinance
> guidance; whereas the Lictor is a hunting, stalking type of adversary who's
> entire design is stealth and destruction.
> I believe the obvious truth is that while I may not directly target any
> scouts or Lictors via direct or indirect fire, but I could if I wish fire ant
> any other given space on the board/ table, discredits the entirety of the
> game and removes any strategy potential that was inherent to the racial
> design in the first place. Obviously if they are protected from any
> targeting, they are unseen to the army that faces them, else they would be
> targeted and destroyed. To suggest otherwise is absurd in the extreme.
> So it was, that my suggestion to remove them from the table and keep track
> of the units in a virtual board or map of the board until the opposing sides
> forces discovered them within 25cm as per the rules. If they are on the
> table, no matter how well the person may be at ignoring the obvious (a
> prevalent skill but ill practiced) they are undoubtedly aware of what it is
> and its capabilities and will use that information to their advantage every
> time. If the spotters were removed from the table, the opposing team could
> perhaps notice that the barrages were a tad bit too accurate and suspect a
> spotter nearby, (in the woods perhaps, likely even) and barrage the suspected
> area or send troops to investigate.
> Why must we know in advance where their command units are but not target
> them, why can I destroy any building or barrage any centimeter of the board
> at my whim, but not a command unit or scout type. These rules make no sense
> to any strategist worthy of breathing the air of life. This inept reasoning
> has left what little spirit or resemblance to the Warhammer 40k universe may
> have had to offer in the shit can. What you've created in its wake is a mere
> clone of a strategy intensive game that leaves no mystery or surprise. If
> the only alteration to the strategy is die roles, then I pity the poor
> imagining of those unfortunate enough to waste a moments breath in playing
> it. So while you may placate yourselves with the thought that there are some
> out here reading into the rules and coming up with wild theories as to their
> use, spend a simple quite moment in eager contemplation of what the rules
> mean to you in the first place. They are a tool to facilitate the enjoyment
> of a reasonably true to form strategy game that can be enjoyed and completed
> in a reasonable length of time and setup.
> I would suggest that most if not all of those who play this type of game
> are in a small group that keeps to themselves and rarely get involved in any
> tournament style interaction. This allows for house rules that may differ
> greatly from the basic rules available for those incapable of delving any
> further than mere observance of simplistic and unrealistic rules. You and
> doubtless others have a different opinion.
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Received on Mon Dec 18 2000 - 03:28:58 UTC