Re: [Epic] Net Epic: Close combat

From: Chad Taylor <ct454792_at_...>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:55:55 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Michael the Liu wrote:

> >Right. We used to do it the same way.
> >However, don't forget that we've now agreed to have snap fire *instead of*
> >defensive fire (do I remember correctly?), so the titan, and everybody else
> >within range, can SF to the infantry, but there will be no pre-CC FF.
>
> Well, if we're going to change it so that defensive fire is snap fire,
> perhaps we should make the rule that snap firing by a detachment against an
> enemy that's charging it doesn't have that -1 to hit penalty. This would
> represent the fact that it's easier to hit a moving target when its coming
> (for the most part) straight at you. And it would also keep from
> unbalancing the game towards CC game balance wise.
>
>

Since we don't have "defensive" FF anymore and FF came before CC for that
reason, then shouldn't we just move FF to after the CC phase. So it would
go: snapfire, CC, FF, ADVANCE.

  
> >> I think that the current rules work pretty well, and it would be a huge
> >> uneccessary complication to implement a case by case orders by orders CC
> >> rule just for titans.
> >>
> >>I don't approve of changing the CC rules as they stand, but if people do
> >>see a problem, perhaps the simplest solution would be to say that "you cannot
> >>engage a model you cannot pin" (although the model you cannot pin CAN
> >>squish you like a bug if it chooses to engage YOU...) Skimmers would be a
> >>special case to be dealt with separately...
>

Sounds like a good idea. Maybe add in the concept of needing several
smaller models to engage a larger model.

> Ummm, sigs
> >>>Keith Zanardi
>
> >>Agro
>
> >S. Birol Akmeric
> >nethol_at_...
>
> Michael the Liu
>

Chad
Received on Tue Feb 18 1997 - 20:55:55 UTC