Hi!
While anyone can and will express their opinions on any topic, please try to
do so in a courteous manner. There is no need to be overly agressive in
wording responses. There is no doubt that many people on the list will
disagree on many things, but we have always agreed on being civil. This list
compared to most tends to be "flame free". Lets keep it that way.
Keep in mind that e-mail lacks the way to convey body language accurately so
what we type may be misinterpreted from what was intended by the writer.
Continue to discuss to your hearts content-politely!
Peter
>From: salzanzibar_at_...
>Reply-To: netepic_at_egroups.com
>To: netepic_at_egroups.com
>Subject: Re: Re: [NetEpic ML] Invisible Lictors
>Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 01:36:02 EST
>
>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.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com
Received on Mon Dec 18 2000 - 14:26:07 UTC