Re: [Epic] Problems with the old system

From: Dan Lobb <danlobb_at_...>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 01:09:37 -0800

John A Chapman wrote:
>
> >
> > John A Chapman wrote:
> > >
> > I would guess that skimmers are capable of increasing there output
> > breifly to jump obstacles, but can't sustain it for an extended period.
> > Perhaps like a basketball player that can jump to dunk the ball, but
> > can't hang in the air around the basket indefinitely. They draw the line
> > between skimmers and flyers here. Skimmers make popup attacks. That
> > sounds like they have an abrupt rise and fall in the tactic.
> >
> Thats cool but since they have to drop down youd have to guess that
> they would no longer be hanging up in the air so everyone can shoot at them
> when theyre engaged in close combat (and if theyre that high how come
> infantry - for example - that theyre CCing arent LOW enough below the skimmers
> to also be shot at?). But if they do remain a few feet off the ground youd think
> that ending the turn over rubble or craters wouldnt be fatal (maybe even over
> water - heck even inches above the surface and theyd be fine). My main gripe
> is just the inconsistent physics of the situation, it seems GW tried to screw
> them over two ways, leading to my problems of inconsistancy. Maybe it was for
> game balance purposes but it doesnt have to mean that I like it.....
> JAC
I saw a battle report from this past year where they decided that jet
bikes could end their move in a crater. This was not an official ruling,
but I believe it was a game involving Andy or Jervis. I will try to dig
it up. You are right, the rules are not consistent and at times
illogical. It appears that the rules were made as issues developed.
Perhaps they will have a more systematic approach and sufficient
playtesting in the next edition.

dan
Received on Thu Jan 23 1997 - 09:09:37 UTC