RE: [Epic] Ork 2000 pts

From: Miller, Chris <CMiller_at_...>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 10:36:10 -0600

> > > Argh!!! PanzerBush tactics!
> >
> > I prefer the term "bounding overwatch" myself... :)
> > Seriously, I doubt that a Cyclops has really good power traversal
> > against crossing targets. That was one of the reasons why the
> > otherwise-excellent Swedish 'S'-tank wasn't a success.
> >
>
> In case you missed it, the old AH game "PanzerBlitz" had no op fire
> options at all. If you started in cover and ended in cover you could
> not be shot.Come to think about, execpt for snap fire, neither does
> E40K. REALLY need to think about op fire rules.
>
>
----------> Considering what kind of strategies that led to, and how
blatantly artificial it is , isn't it amazing how many games ignore the
need for op fire? Battletech does it, Epic games have all done it, along
with others. And I agree, snap fire alone does not make up for this.
Snap fire as an add-on in SM/TL really didn't make up for it either, as
so few units had it. I'd like to see some kind of Orders, similar to
overwatch, call it "Opportunity Fire" allowing a unit to fire in the
enemy's movement phase. You might even limit it to half maximum range
for some game balance reason as it's kind of hipshooting rather than
normal aimed fire.
         Either that or pull out the old "Track" counters from Squad
Leader and allow firing during the fire phase to be directed at the unit
as if it was at any point during it's move, though this could get
cumbersome with groups of mini's. I think I like the actual firing
during movement idea better.
        And yes, it's one of those "cheesy" and "artifact of the turn
sequence" type things, but if the rules allow (encourage?) it, you'll
see people do it, which is a good enough reason to fix the rules. You'd
think the stupid panzerbush hole would have been closed years ago,
except in the simplest of games, which this still isn't.

Chris Miller
Received on Thu Mar 26 1998 - 16:36:10 UTC