Re: [Epic] Net Epic

From: Seth Ben-Ezra <Azathoth_at_...>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:54:49 -0500

On 12 Feb 97 at 10:33, kx.henderson_at_... wrote:

<snip suggestions re:voluntary fallback>
 
> I still think Charging in Epic is merely moving as fast as is possible to
> gain ground OR to engage the enemy with the good ol' bayonet OR to simply
> move at top speed to get somewhere.

That's right. In fact, I think that I use charge orders to outflank or
to cover lots of ground (e. g. Rhinos with Marines grabbing objectives)
just as often as as I use it to engage in CC.

> > Rout: These troops have just failed a morale check and are retreating.
> > (not necessarily in total panic, but disorder) They will have
> > to move away from the enemy, as in fall back. They cannot shoot
> > and will fight close combat with -2. Shooting at them is done
> > with -1, as with fall backers. They cannot claim objectives
> > and will have to pass a morale check in order to get rid of
> > the counter.
>
> No. The term Rout should still be reserved for units on Forced Fall Back
> orders that fail another Morale Test forced upon them. Routed units are
> destroyed. Simple.
>
> To try and keep everyone happy I have a suggestion. Units on Forced Fall
> Back orders cannot hold an objective unless they are the ONLY unit within
> range that can hold it. They cannot be counted as a viable unit for
> CONTESTING an objective if there are enemy units in a position to contest
> the objective ("Sir, we have suppressed the enemy at the objective. Enemy
> neutralised as they are no longer a threat. Objective may now be taken at
> will."). Simple, effective and a compromise I feel. Comments anyone?

It works for me. However, once the unit on fall-back moves out of
range, the objective should be lost, unlike the usual procedure, in
which no one must remain to hold the objective.

Concerning voluntary fall-back, the only difference that I have seen
between voluntary fall-back and charge is that fallback gives a penalty
to incoming fire due to the troops taking advantage of cover. This
doesn't wash for two reasons. First, with the exceptions of infantry,
any cover that is capable of obscuring a unit will be represented on
the board already and will already be giving the normal penalty to hit.
 No one can seriously argue that a Land Raider hits the dirt and is
belly-crawling back to its baseline. :) But, even in the case of
infantry, speed and cover are mutually exclusive things. If infantry
is attempting to take advantage of small bushes, rocks, ditches, etc.
too small to be represented, that would _slow_ them down, not speed
them up. I understand why people have been pushing for this new order,
but it isn't reasonable.

BTW, did we agree to add a Repair order for Titans? If so, what did we
say?

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf
Received on Wed Feb 12 1997 - 01:54:49 UTC