[Epic] Net Epic

From: Peter Ramos <pramos1_at_...>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 12:48:34 +0000

Hello!



Regarding the following:



> I suppose. But in a game where Snap-Fire is being used, how are we going to

> distinguish between all the types of movement? Are we to keep the various

> Phases as they currently stand or merely have the one game phase where you

> reveal an order and resolve whatever the unit may be doing? If we use the

> second then the advantages/disadvantages of stationary firing over moving

> and firing must be made. And how Snap-Fire fits into all of this.



I have carefully studied Andy's movement rules and if he is reading

these I would like him to elaborate further on the relationship between

order counters and chits I dont quite understand them.The disadvantage I

see to them is the making of the chits since these will obviously not be

uniform to everyone who uses them perhaps causing arguments.Another
disadvantage it would be prefered that whatever rules are used it should
be one that has similarity to the present system to avoid learning a
completely different system.

Regarding:

> I suppose. But in a game where Snap-Fire is being used, how are we going to
> distinguish between all the types of movement? Are we to keep the various
> Phases as they currently stand or merely have the one game phase where you
> reveal an order and resolve whatever the unit may be doing? If we use the
> second then the advantages/disadvantages of stationary firing over moving
> and firing must be made. And how Snap-Fire fits into all of this.
>
Snap fire can be taken by any unit on first fire orders and may
interrupt a opponents move at any time along its path to fire and
continue if not destroyed.This snap fire can be taken by any unit
regardless of phase as long as its on first fire. As far as revealing
orders I like Seth's(Great Wolf) idea of reavealing only the orders of
the units that move in that phase, it gives a good picture of what the
current phasing units can do while units outside the current phase are
still secret.

Regarding:

> Regarding movement:
> I'm in favour of alternating moves, but I don't think there should be different
> phases for different types of vehicle, it's just an added complication. Perhaps
> we could adapt the system from Warzone: roll for initiative at the start of
> the movement phase, whoever wins gets to pick which model/unit moves first,
> including his opponents models. That is, if I win initiative I can either
> move one of my own units or make my opponent move one of his. Alternate
> from then on. How's that?
>
> Philip
>
If the final consensus is against the proposed alternating movement
system I definately agree your proposition should be instituted.

Regarding:

> > MOVEMENT TYPE TERRAIN EFFECT
> > foot/horse no restrictions except for rivers and
> other impassible terrain
>
> Do you mean that cavalry should be able to move full speed though woods?
> If you do I vote againist this.

Traditionally horse mounted soldiers had a advantage in woods due to
superior mobility if people think this unbalanced we can give it the
same restrictions as jet bike typr units.Opinions on this please!

Regarding:

> I have comments on two parts of Peter's initial posting. The first is
> regarding movement and unit facing. As I recall, the facing of the
> model is based on the direction in which it was moving last, varying
> by 45 degrees either way. What my group has usually played is that
> facing can be changed by the expenditure of 1 cm of movement. I
> haven't been playing for very long and might be missing something, but
> this solution seems to work reasonably well and minimizes extra rules.
> As far as skimmers go, GW has always said that their rules regarding
> their ending a turn on impassable terrain were made merely because of
> the model's inability to balance on the terrain. If that's the only
> reason, then I say that we eliminate that silly rule. I think that we
> can all work around the physical limitations of the models. :)

I have seen variations of this idea an on whole works well, but it
doesnt address issues like a tracked vehicle being able to move strait
backwards while firing on advance orders ( how many cm would be lost by
such a move) also 1 cm is not stiff enough penalty for such freedom(it
would just cost 4cm movement to turn 180 degrees at the end of moving
strait ahead).

United we stand!
Peter
Received on Mon Feb 03 1997 - 12:48:34 UTC