Re: [Epic] Net epic

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:56:22 GMT

>----------
>> From: Peter Ramos <pramos1_at_...>
>>
>> ADVANCE PHASE
>> As normal ,except that people have expressed that units unengaged in
>> close combat should fire in the advance phase. There are many benefits
>> to this so I agree with those who like the idea.
>>
>> WELL GUYS ITS YOUR TURN, OPINIONS PLEASE!!!!
>>
>Although I mentioned this in earlier messages, I'd like to restate one of
>our house rules since it seems relevant now.
>
>"Transports and infantry in mixed detachments (eg SM tactical or
>terminator, or Evil Sunz Clan) can be given different orders so long as
>they differ just by one degree (that is FF&A or C&A but not FF&C) and the
>formation rules are obeyed".
>
>The logic behind this can be readily understood watching the "real life"
>troops disembarking from their transports under fire. The weapon mounts on
>the transport opens fire on
>defending positions covering for the troops disembarking by stages. This
>modification eliminates situations where giving your Terminators charge
>orders prevents their Land Raiders from shooting (while their CAF is much
>lower, and fire power considerably higher). It also enables the
>transportees to defend their advancing vehicles in CC, if charged by the
>enemy. Suppose you are a trooper: do you just sit in your personnel carrier
>and wait to be butchered while attacked by charging infantry, just because
>your carrier "doesn't move fast enough" or "preparing to shoot" (that is in
>advance orders)?
>

Yeah, I've always hated the way terminator companies couldn't use their
awesome transports for supporting fire while their awesome CC troops did
their thing...

Agro
Received on Thu Feb 13 1997 - 11:56:22 UTC