RE: [Epic] Q&A suggestion: (was] Cheddar & Edam)

From: Miller, Chris <CMiller_at_...>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 11:53:17 -0600

> The ever-present
> > example is fast attack troops (like Swooping Hawks) in one
> detachment
> > and another detachment of transports. Since they're 2 different
> > detachments, you can give the transports March orders (x3 move) and
> > still put the attack troops on Assault. You can move the infantry
> > 90-100cm in one turn this way. Nasty.
>
> I still disagree that you can do this, since I think March orders
> represents
> the units moving quickly during the whole move (explaining the
> no-cover
> rule), including the time the assault troops would spend disembarking
> and
> moving further and assaulting). Has this been asked in a Q&A? (I'll
> look of course, but typical netizen, I'm typing before researching.
> :-)
> (Also before finding any rule that says you can't do this.)
>
> andy
>
>
--------> I think we could almost all agree that this is rules-lawyering
bigtime, but the problem is that by the letter of the rules it's legal.
All it would take to fix it is a statement like "a unit leaving a
transport has movement remaining which is proprotional to the amount of
movement used by the transport. Example: If you move the transport half
of its move #, troops inside can move a max of half their movement
allowed by their orders, even in the assault phase." Ok, that's a little
cumbersome to explain, but anyone who's played SM/TL knows what I'm
trying to say. That way, even if the transports are on march, the
assault troops aren't gaining this sudden movement burst. Or just phrase
it as "all movement within the movement phase is simultaneous" which
means you can't string together movement like that described above.
        While we're at it, we could fix the annoying "infiltrators
bouncing out of transports and gaining extra movement" effect too. Maybe
state that the infiltrating bonus move must be used first.
        
Chris Miller
Received on Thu Jan 29 1998 - 17:53:17 UTC