Hi!
If his opponent tries such a poor ploy, the chaos player will wipe the
floor with him, since he will have nothing to check his advance.
Remember the -1 to hit is a BIG disadvantage. It means most troops hit
on a 6. Causalties will be low and the chaos player is free to do the
happy "I-stomp-you-good" dance.
Against chaos you have to go with the sure thing to make casualties,
snap fire will not do this.
Peter
Karlsen Rune wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Thanks for the feedback. Our chaos players main concern, is
> that he wont be able to move his units in the first round.
> He fears that we will all snapfire his units to pieces
> before he can even move. I feel this is exaggarated, but
> im sure he'd like to hear it from you :)
>
> Rune
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter Ramos [mailto:primarch_at_...]
>> Sent: 27. februar 2001 17:20
>> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Snapfire
>>
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Well, being an experienced...well.. any army player, I'll
>> answer these
>> questions.
>>
>> Karlsen Rune wrote:
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I'd like to have an experienced Chaos player answer me this
>>
>> question please
>>
>>> :
>>> How does snapfire rules affect the chaos army?
>>
>> Chaos needs to be very, very careful using snap fire. Chaos
>> has usually
>> very few units than normally stay on first fire. They are needed to
>> support the whole host of charging chaos units. Chaos should use it
>> sparingly or not at all. The only reason to use it is if you
>> can destroy
>> some transport-laden vehicles.
>>
>>> What are your experiences
>>> with playing chaos and using snapfire?
>>
>> I rarely use it due to the reasons above. Now chaos is a good army to
>> force snap fire on your opponent. This is a good thing since the more
>> fire is taken on snap fire the less there is in the combat
>> phase where
>> most of your troops will be in close combat. Less remaining
>> first fire
>> units, means less of them switching to advance to clean up your
>> victorious close combat units.
>>
>>> How often do you see SF
>>> used, and how often (and with which units) do you yourself use SF?
>>
>> On average, regardless of armies played snap fire is not used much,
>> perhpas 2-3 times in a whole game. The reason is simple, at first
>> everyone who tries it out is snap fire happy, shooting away
>> regardless
>> or consequences. Then in the combat phase you realize what a
>> bad idea it
>> was. I seen people lose games because of unnecessary snap
>> fire, why take
>> shots at -1 to hit when yo ucan take them normally in the
>> combat phase?
>> If there isn't a good reason to use snap fire-then don't!
>>
>>> How do you defend against SF? Would you rather play without SF?
>>
>> You dont really need to defend against it, it is defensive
>> rather than
>> offensive, you cant target any unit, ONLY those in movement, so it
>> limits potential targets. If you really need to attack a
>> position use an
>> expendable unit first to engage the first fire unit, then
>> bring in the
>> unit you really need.
>>
>>> Appreciate any answers, as im currently crusading to implement
>>> SF. Its just too logical to play without imho.
>>
>> As I have said before, snap fire isn't much of a big deal. Its a tool
>> like any other game rule, overuse it and you (not your opponent) will
>> suffer. Now the sole existance of snap fire does make your opponent
>> think, which is a good thing, no more charging rhinos straight up in
>> open ground to the objective with you being able to do
>> nothing. I really
>> don't like a game where there is "free" movement. Everything
>> should have
>> risk. Overall the threat of it being used has made teh game
>> better than
>> it actually being used. Anything that adds tactics to a game
>> is a good
>> thing.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Feb 27 2001 - 18:03:46 UTC