I like this rule also peter
Please put it up for a vote
Q...
Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...> wrote:
Hi!
That's a pretty good rule. Simple easy to remeber and calculate. I think
I would include all these as optional variants to the same rule. Of
course if prefered I'd use your as the sole inclusion for a optional rule.
Peter
Karlsen Rune wrote:
> I agree completely with this. I have an alternative rule which would
> minimize die rolling, but
> still put a semblance of realism into morale and breaking issues. This is my
> suggestion :
>
> When broken, and a successful morale check is rolled, consider the remaining
> units as
> a "new" card with the same stats, but now with new BP's consistant with the
> 50% rule
> (or 75% in case of the squats). When the casualties to this "new" unit once
> again
> reaches its new BP, roll for morale again. This will make it increasingly
> difficult to
> keep small broken forces on the table.
>
> Example :
>
> Slann Gravguards, 16 stands, BP 8 (When broken, 8 stands will remain)
> These 8 stands will compose the "new" card, and will in accordance with
> the 50% rule get a BP of 4. If 4 more Slann stands are killed, 4 will
> remain,
> and a morale check is forced. If the check is made, the new BP will be 2,
> and killing 2 more Slann forces a new morale check.
>
> What do you think of this?
>
> Rune
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nils.saugen_at_... [mailto:nils.saugen_at_...]
> Sent: 10. januar 2001 14:19
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Another question
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree completely! In our gaming group we're not going to include this
> change anyway, so for us this discussion is of little value. However, I
> strongly recomend that you think this through one more time!
>
> This is a significant change in the game, and it must be put to the polls!
>
> Nils
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eivind Borgeteien [mailto:eivind.borgeteien_at_...]
> Sent: 10. januar 2001 14:14
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Another question
>
>
> Hi
> I strongly resent this change! It will have great impact on the game,
> especially on the armies with low moral score.
>
> I think this is a change that requires a poll and a 2/3 majority to be
> included in the core-rules. If it doesnt make it, let it be an optional
> rule.
>
> What does the rest of you think?
>
> Eivind
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Peter Ramos <mailto:primarch_at_...>
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com <mailto:netepic_at_egroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 1:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Another question
>
> Hi!
>
> This seems to be the prefered way of doing it. If there are no dissenters
> this is the one to apply: "broken units will check for morale in the end
> phase of every turn until the game ends. These units may be rallied
> normally. This check is in addition to any others they may suffer due to
> game effects in the turn".
>
> Peter
>
> sarah-warren wrote:
>
>
> Myself and the guys use option 1 and it works quite well, more chances of
> failing
>
> Warren
> -----Original Message-----
> From: maxerdog_at_... <mailto:maxerdog_at_...>
> <mailto:maxerdog_at_...> <maxerdog_at_...>
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com <mailto:netepic_at_egroups.com>
> <mailto:netepic_at_egroups.com> <netepic_at_egroups.com>
> Date: 05 January 2001 11:57
> Subject: [NetEpic ML] Another question
>
>
>
> Thanks for the reply to my previous question. My gaming partner and
> I are looking for a way to penalize units that have been broken but
> have passed their morale check. We do not like the way these units
> pass one morale check and then are immune to causalties for the rest
> of the game. Our two ideas.
>
> 1. A morale check every turn a broken unit suffers causities.
>
> or
>
> 2. A morale check to give broken units orders.
>
> Is one of these viable options? Will it unbalance things to much for
> armies with poor morale?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> <mailto:netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> <mailto:netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com>
>
>
> !
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>
>
> eGroups Sponsor
>
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=155181.1283799.2880018.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700059081:N/
> A=527834/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;2178697;5122774;t?http://www.busines
> s.com/> Click here for Business information
> Click here for Business information
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>
>
eGroups Sponsor
Click here to Win a 2001 Acura MDX
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
RuneSmith Studio "we bring the art to war"
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
Received on Wed Jan 10 2001 - 15:32:15 UTC