Re: [Epic] Net Epic

From: Tony Christney <acc_at_...>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 15:01:45 -0800

>Greetings!
>
>Following are more close combat issues that need to be addressed:
>
>1-How many individual models can physically engage a given target.(How
>many stands can REASONABLY engage another stand.

I say stick with the current (TL) system, where if you want to charge a unit
in the side or rear, then you have to be to the side or rear. This usually
restricts the number of stands you can use to attack an infantry stand to
two. It also makes it much harder to swamp a Titan with cheap troops. From
most of the posts on this list I would guess that most people ignore this
rule. However I still feel that it is very important to game balance.

>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.

I thinl that the current system works OK. From my understanding, you divide
combat between all active participants as evenly as possible. So if five
space marines attack three orks, then you would have two two-on-one and
one one-on-one fights. The space marines would get to choose who gets ganged
up on for whatever reason (like the stands are closer to the objective).

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

Tony Christney
acc_at_...
Received on Thu Feb 20 1997 - 23:01:45 UTC