>
> But it will completely remove the "pin the expensive
> units with the little rhino" cheese move!
>
> This is by no means a cheesy move!!!!
Yes it is. Why? Because units on FF don't wait until
the enemy has pinned them before they fire on them.
You fire on them as they advance towards you, and that is
in all practicality SF. If you would wait until
the enemy was upon you, you'd be pretty stupid.
>
> It will make us able to punish bad moves.
>
> Granted, However, I dreat the notion of having to wait
> any longer
> while Eivind ponders his next move (No offence Eivind!!!)
Ok, one point for you :)
> It will make us think more strategically, and
> thus make us better players.
>
> Nope it wont.... Though it may make us change tactics somewhat.
Yes it will. No longer being able to move units out in the
open without fearing repercussions is unrealistic.
It will make us rethink tactics, and thereby improve
our tactical thinking.
>
> Tell me why you dont like SF, and dont say its
> because it takes too much time or requires bookkeeping,
> because it does neither.
>
> Now Eivind and Robert tried this, and their experience
> was just the
> oposite I do belive. (Care to comment Eivind?). Now Peter
> has advocated
> that this is not so, and since he has somewhat more
> experience on the
> subject I think his opinion is mor valid in this
> instance. However,
> he also said that it seldom comes into use, most often not
> at all. This
> of course could be an argument for both sides. I argue, if
> you don't use
> it anyway, why have it in the first place. And yes it will
> add to the time
> spent playing as everybody ponders how to move more
> without getting hit by
> snapfire.
We seldom use the titan CC rules. Does that mean we shouldn't
have them? Ok, a little over the board, but you get my drift?
I dont like resctricting options. It's always nice to have
an option, even if you're not going to use it there and then.
> Tell me why SF would be a detriment to our game.
>
> Well it complicates the game somwhat, only slightly I
> gather, but I
> always think simple is best. Secondly I cant see any advantages in
> including it, and thus I agree with Eivind and Trygve;
> I don't want it
> included!
Simple is not always best, specially when it raises logcical
discrepansies. Simple might work in a game of Ludo, but Epic
is not simple.
> Tell me how we will rectify the cheesy pinning ploys without
> SF (we really need to, logic demands, no, screams in my head
> every time i see such a move)
>
> He, he, The rest of us must live with that treat, so do
> you! Once
> again, pinning Terminators or Vanguards or whatever
> with Rhinos is in no
> way cheesy!!!! What it all boils down to is that none of
> your opponents
> see any advantages in including the Snapfire rule. So we
> have discarded
> it. Sorry for your loss, the same goes for me and Eivind's "super"
> buildings, you win some and you loose some, thats how this small
> democracy of our gaming group works. Note that neither Eivind
> or Trygve has
> made many comments on this. This is because the matter is already
> decided....... I guess I speak for them both when I
> say, forget about this
> it won't happen anyway!!!
>
> Nils
How can you say its not cheesy when it defies logic and RL?
We strive to make wargames realistic (in a fantasy world of course:),
but when a rule adds realism and clears up some cheesy issues,
you turn it down. I've already explained why the pinning is
cheesy, and i hope the members of this group agrees with me.
I know the ones who've adopted SF does..
What i dont understand, is why, when it works for so many,
would it not work for us? Sure, i have some necron vehicles
which can SF without penalty. We're talking maybe 5 or 6
different units. Of these, i regularly play with one (the
Nemesis). Its not like its a great advantage for me, and
i know other armies have similar units. The advantage lies
in strategy.
I really cant forget this. Not using SF is an affront to
my sense of logic (which, i believe, is very strong),
and i will flinch every time i see a bad move which
SF would have made punishable.
Of course, its a democratic process, and i am only one.
As far as i can see, im the only one with any sense
in this issue. Its not about who will win out using
SF, its about making the game better, and making people
think before they charge blindly in. Imagine warfare,
where armies can move about in the open without fearing
attack. Imagine soldiers with the enemy in their sights,
calmly waiting to shoot until they smell their breath on
their faces? Not implementing SF, tells me that you think
this is OK, and completely realistic. So what if Eivind
will use another 30 minutes of game time to contemplate
his moves. Maybe we should as well? If a game takes
4 hours, or even 6 on a saturday afternoon, what does
it matter? One less beer drunk when we go out? Big
deal....
A pox on you, i say, a pox! :)
Rune
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nils.saugen_at_... [mailto:nils.saugen@...]
> > Sent: 1. mars 2001 09:41
> > To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Snapfire
> >
> >
> > Hi Rune,
> >
> > I don't see why you waist your energy on this, by now you
> > should know that
> > theres noting you can say or do to change our minds about
> > snapfire. (We've
> > tried it, prior to introduceing the game to you, and found
> > that we didn't
> > like it.) Eivind and I has debated the topic severeal times,
> > and the answer
> > is always the same, we don't like the consept of snappfire
> > and will never
> > implement it.
> >
> > I know how dissapointed you get when you don't get your ideas
> > through, and I
> > really hate to see that happen. So please, for your own sake,
> > forget about
> > snapfire. It will never be a part of our way of playing Net
> Epic.....
> >
> > Nils
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Karlsen Rune [mailto:rune.karlsen_at_...]
> > Sent: 27. februar 2001 15:36
> > To: 'netepic_at_yahoogroups.com'
> > Subject: [NetEpic ML] Snapfire
> >
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'd like to have an experienced Chaos player answer me this
> > question please
> > :
> > How does snapfire rules affect the chaos army? What are your
> > experiences
> > with playing chaos and using snapfire? How often do you see SF
> > used, and how often (and with which units) do you yourself use SF?
> > How do you defend against SF? Would you rather play without SF?
> >
> > Appreciate any answers, as im currently crusading to implement
> > SF. Its just too logical to play without imho.
> >
> > Rune
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
>
> 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 Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:03:26 UTC