Re: [Epic] Net Epic

From: Jyrki Saari <js54904_at_...>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 17:05:36 +0200 (EET)

> Greetings!
>
> Let me clarify:
>
> Theres two points that need to be cleared up:
>
> 1-Bring back the voluntary fall back orders? if so please define why
> this would be a good addition and what would make this different from
> just charging backwards.

Someone said this already, but here goes again: Falling back is retreating,
charging is not.
 
> 2-broken refers to a unit that has suffers casualties in excess of the
> breaking point, by the opinions thus far I gather that it is desired
> that these units move as before in the movement phase and these units
> may still hold on to objectives. For those who agree with this premise,
> what is the difference between a broken unit and one on fall back orders
> and why do the former get to hold to the objectives and the later.
> Opinions/comments please!

There is one important difference. The troops on fall back have failed their
morale check, so they are more concerned about saving their neck than holding
an objective. The unit that is just broken has lost >= half its troops but
its morale held. It has greatly reduced combat efficiency but it still fights.

> Also as the rules stand mostly imperial troops and maybe squats have
> HQ's that offers morale bonuses.Other armies mainly orks and eldar dont
> have this luxury(not necesarily bad just a comment).
>
> What rumors have reached us of Epic 40k suggests a combat/ morale
> resolution similiar to 40k's where the loser makes morale checks and if
> fails falls back. In our case probably it is simpler that once the unit
> breaks and fails morale to retreat the broken force at the moment of the
> break. Opinions please!

I like the idea of immediate morale checks.


> I foresee difficulties in resurrecting the fall back orders unless
> someone can suggest workable rules that dont mimic or can be reproduced
> with a simple charge order.This is virgin territory and I have no
> previously used system(like as in the movement phase) therefore we must
> pay more thought on the impact of any rule proposed!
>
> United we stand!
> Peter
>
Jyrki Saari
js54904_at_...
Received on Mon Feb 10 1997 - 15:05:36 UTC