Hear hear, a voice of reason :)
Rune
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hellreich [mailto:helreich_at_...]
> Sent: 1. mars 2001 18:12
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Snapfire
>
>
> Then i say you guys need to change the way the trun phase
> works, you need to
> use a trun based like this:
> First fire
> Move
> Close combat
> Advanced fire
> This way you do not need the snap fire, as the first fire
> phase will show
> what units took fire when they try to move. For it is pure
> cheese to be able
> to pin high cost units with crap ones. Heck way even play the
> 10,000 pt
> game. Chaos player take many many beast men, back them with
> some CM, use the
> beast men to pin his good units, when cc is over just mow
> them down with
> your CM heavy fire. But most of the time you will win CC
> since you will out
> number him for he was unable to kill some during the charge,
> for lack of the
> snap fire. Ork players do the same thing. Use Goffs instead
> of beastmen,
> back them with Bad Moons.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <nils.saugen_at_...>
> To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 5:16 AM
> Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] Snapfire
>
>
> > But it will completely remove the "pin the expensive
> > units with the little rhino" cheese move!
> >
> > This is by no means a cheesy move!!!!
> >
> > 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!!!)
> >
> > It will make us think more strategically, and
> > thus make us better players.
> >
> > Nope it wont.... Though it may make us change tactics somewhat.
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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!
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----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/
>
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 - 14:23:19 UTC