Ok Ok lets see if we can clear some things up here so that we may all work
from the same page. SF how it works and why!!
Ok to SF you elect a uit you want to fire on, then you roll all your dice at
that unit. You have a -1 to hit unless the unit is one that ignors this.
Once you have SF you remove the FF marker and may not do anything eles for
the rest of that turn. So one may not fire some weapons as SF, saving some
for later use. It don't work that way.
Dose this clear things up
Ok now for why, Lets say you have a Mech on FF, there is a unit of Beastmen
in charge distance. Now being the Mech player, I know darn well you are
going to charge me and try to tie up my unit. By the rules you are playing I
can do nothing but fire on them really causing me to lose any tatical use of
them. With SF in the game, I could of choose to fire the mechs at something
eles that moved before you charged me. say you moved your Deamon before you
charged, I could say well instead of me losing my FF to the beastmen cause I
know they are going to charge. I will SF on the deamon, causing you to use a
card to save it or even killing it. By forcing you to use a card to save it,
I might even have broke up your idea of using that card on the unit that was
planned to charge my mech.
----- Original Message -----
From: <nils.saugen_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 6:26 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!!!!
>
> 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.
>
>
> I Dont think we'll ever agree on this one.... For me this is a really
greate
> move!!!! And you know something, I don't think I ever have had it used
> against me.....
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Yupp, tactical is the key word here!!! :)
> >
> > 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.
>
> I disagree!!! Simpler rules make for less rules bikering!!!!
>
> > 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?
>
> No it's very logical. I'll explain why:
>
> We conduct fiering the wrong way! We're supposed to nominate all our shots
> then roll the dice together. We nomenate on shot, and then roll the die
for
> that shot! Then the next shot, and so on. When a unit with more than one
> shot is charged it kan kill a unit with it's first shot, and your point is
> that they should be able to fire the rest of the shots at other targets.
> When you conduct shooting the right way, you really wont know wheter it's
> the first, second, third or forth attack that kills the opponenet.
However,
> youre forced to nominate all your shots at the unit that charges you. That
> is the game side of it.
>
> Now to "real" life, I have no actuall combat experience, but I think that
it
> would be very natural to fire all you've got at the guys charging you!!!
At
> least thats, what I would have done, under the rule of consentration of
> fire. I would make damn sure that those guys charging me, wouldn't get
> anywhere close to me!
>
> A pox on you, i say, a pox! :)
>
>
> He, he, he......
>
> Preller av som vann p� g�sa!!!! Norwegian saying!
>
> 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/
>
>
> 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 - 17:51:54 UTC