> Isn't it pretty clearly stated in the fallback rules that units on fall back
> can't hold objectives? Or did I miss something about voluntary fallback and
> shtuff?
In the standard rules, I have been able to find no mention of units on
fallback orders not being able to hold objectives. Thus, we have always
played that units on fallback who happen to be lucky (unlucky?) enough
to take cover on top of an objective holds the objective. After all,
somebody has to own it, and they are standing upon it.
However, in the past a lot of players have expressed the opinion that
they felt it was unfair for units on fallback to be considered
owning an objective marker, and the consensus for Net Epic seems
to be leaning that way.
My example was meant to point out an unusual circumstance that had
happened in one of my games. (i.e. I'm standing on it but hiding;
you're standing next to it but don't want to come in.) If you are
going to rule that units on fallback can't hold an objective, then
this example became a loophole that needed to be filled.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allen (The EPIC Q&A guy)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the EPIC Q&A Pages at:
http://work1.utsi.edu:8000/~amccarle/EPIC.html
If you have EPIC questions, send them to: allen_at_...
They will be passed on to Andy Chambers and Jervis Johnson.
Send all other correspondance to: allen_at_...
---------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Mon Feb 10 1997 - 22:58:25 UTC