Re: [Epic] Pods and Hawks

From: J. Michael Looney <mlooney_at_...>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:17:41 -0600

A. Allen McCarley wrote:
>
> > > Generally, I agree with you. However, THawks do have certain advantages
> > > and I often use them.
> > >
> > > 1) Precision. As you say, this is marginal.
> >
> > Yeah, and the need to avoid overflying a herd of small things with guns
> > to get to tasty bits in side.
>
> Given the current rules allowing flyers to enter from any table edge, I
> usually don't have too much troubel getting to where I want to be
> without overflying much.
>
You would with how I lay out detachments, assuming that I know I am
facing T-hawks.

> > > [laying down blast markers]
> >
> > Ah, that dosen't add up. 3 x 8 = 24 div by 2 for transport = 12 = 1
> > (one) blast marker. If I recall the table correctly. If not, it's 2
> > (two). I KNOW it is not 3 (three)
>
> Actually, you determine how many blast markers you lay down before you
> halve the firepower. Same thing with using assault orders, or reducing
> your firepower for the number of blast markers you own.
>

I was wrong there.

> > > 3) Delayed arrival. When your reserves in Drop Pods show up, they land.
> > > Right now. Nothing you can do about it. While I've never tried this
> > > myself, I believe the rules state that any flyers on intercept orders
> > > can loiter if there are no targets you wish to engage with them. You
> > > might want to give you THawks intercept orders on turn 2 so that you
> > > could delay landing your troops until turn 3 or later.
> >
> >
> > You can't land on intercept orders. While the rules do not state that
> > you can't change orders from turn to turn for flyers, I would pitch a
> > bitch if some one put t-hawks on intercept on turn 2, loitered (yes your
> > right you can do that), then changed to transport on turn 3, with a a
> > RTB inbetween. Cheese is not the least thing I would say.
>
> First, what's an RTB?

Return to Base. Sorry, old TLA from my ADA days.

>
> Would you really consider this cheesey? Objections to this caught me by
> surprise. Keep in mind that by delaying my arrival by another turn I've
> probably kept a couple hundred points off the table for another 25% of the
> game. They already lost 25% by not being able to enter on turn 1, now I'm
> forcing them to miss turn 2.
>
Yes, I would. As I read the flyer rules, if you don't want them to come
on in turn 2, then simply don't bring them. I could be wrong here, but
I just read the flyer rules, so I don't think so. What you are doing is
bring in things to kill my a/c, but if I don't bring any a/c in you get
to land them the next turn. Ah, No. Despite the fact that I don't have
any flyers in my orks, this bothers me, from several angles. One is the
rule rape aspect of it, the other is, well, an A/C out fitted to shoot
down other A/C is NOT outfitted to carry troops, at least in the real
world. Any yeah, I know realism is a dirty word here.

> Sure, I'm doing so because I have a plan for using them more efficiently
> on turn 3. Or, at least I hope it will be more efficiently. If I were the
> enemy, however, I'd be glad to have another turn free of the interference
> of these transports and troops and to have more time to prepare for their
> arrival on the next turn. I could understand (and enjoy) seeing a debate
> over whether or not people thought it was worth it to delay your tropps'
> arrival, but I didn't expect the see someone call this cheese.
>
> Just out of curiosity, why would you feel that this is a broken tactic?

I don't think it's a broken tactic, I think it cheating, rule rape and
several other bad words.

>
> > In fact, Q&A person, why don't you ask the dudes that?
>
> Sure, no problem. Of course, first I have to prod Jervis into answering
> the last letter I sent off several weeks ago.
>
> > They have allowed weirder things (scouts from pods coming to mind)
>
> Amen to that objection, brother. Methinks Warwick is trying to give
> old Gavin a run for his money in the power-gaming category.
>

>
Received on Fri Mar 13 1998 - 20:17:41 UTC