Hi!
No need. It will get put in as optional, as most things will so people
can fine tune their games.
Peter
quester wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>
>
> RuneSmith Studio "we bring the art to war"
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Photos <http://photos.yahoo.com/> - Share your holiday photos
> online!
> eGroups Sponsor
> [Click here to Win a 2001 Acura MDX]
> Click here to Win a 2001 Acura MDX
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=155181.1283799.2880018.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700059081:N/A=548475/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;2267767;5122774;q?http://www.business.com/challenge>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Received on Wed Jan 10 2001 - 15:53:13 UTC