Re: [Epic] Net Epic

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 00:37:19 GMT

>1-How many individual models can physically engage a given target.(How
>many stands can REASONABLY engage another stand.


Well, hand to hand it is very hard to engage more than three on one... but
taking into account short range weapons fire as part of CC (explaining how
those pesky bikes assault titan heads and such) it isn't UNREASONABLE for
ten or twenty guys to put shots into some nearby enemy...

It seems that the new E40K has a limit of two stands to one, but I would
tend toward "as many figures as can make base to base contact".

We currently use a rule that requires at least half a base to base contact
to CC, but I would even suggest that for infantry stands assaulting things I
would require full base to base contact.

Agro


>
>2-When a numerically superior foe engages in close combat a enemy lesser
>in number, how should we resolve combat? The present way of resolving it
>has probably caused many arguments.


Why? It seems pretty plain to me that allowing the numerically superior foe
to choose the order of combat is a pretty reasonable thing since the
numerically superior foe DOES have a pretty clear advantage.

If we are going to change it, I would suggest that any models that are not
pinned (titans vs non titans, SHV's vs smaller, even skimmers vs others -
maybe!) should be allowed to choose the order rather than the numerically
superior foe.



>Other issues:
>
>1-Any questions or opinions on the actual way firing is handled should
>be voiced.


I've said it before (so I'll say it again) - I don't like the idea of units
on FF being able to snap fire, although I guess that if they can only shoot
at units that are moving and then with a penalty, it might not be
unmanageable...


>
>2-The issue of transports and thier cargo have been expressed(same or
>different orders for each), up to now different orders for each is
>favored.


Yep, that's what I favour.


>3-Units on advance that are engaged in close combat, units not engage
>should be able to fire normally. This is the opinion stated by
>many-opinions are still needed!


Of course they can. Why wouldn't they? (Isn't that how the rules are at
the moment?) The only exception I can see is if the unit is charged by a
moral check inducing unit (daemon, tyranid, bloodclaw, are there any
others?) and the unit fails its moral check.

Agro


>
>Of course the big issue is pinning up to now the simplest way is to
>adopt pre-TL rules and then reclassify individual models as needed when
>we cover the armies-SOUNDS GOOD!
>
>REMENDER-I ALWAYS READ EVERYONES OPINIONS, ALTHOUGH I MAY NOT COMMENT ON
>ALL, THEY ARE STILL VALUABLE AND TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT!!!
>
>United we stand!
>Peter
>
Received on Fri Feb 14 1997 - 00:37:19 UTC