Re: [Epic] Ork 2000 pts

From: Thane Morgan <thane_at_...>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:06:39 -0700

Miller, Chris wrote:
>
> > > > 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

I think the reason for no snap fire is that GW loves close combat, and
snap fire is the death of close combat. More realistic, but the addition
of snapfire would likely require a decrease in points for CC troops.

Thane
Received on Fri Mar 27 1998 - 06:06:39 UTC