Re: [Epic] Battle report and comments (LONG)

From: Scott Shupe <shupes_at_...>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:05:05 -0400

Andy Skinner wrote:
>
> Thoughts and questions:
> 1) A March move means you can't take advantage of cover. What about
> LOS? If most of a detachment's move was in view, and they end up out of
> LOS, they're safer than if they could use cover.

        Not if the enemy has artillery. Otherwise, you're right,
the marchers are pretty much safe if they can get behind cover.

> 2)
> We haven't had a real problem with blast markers determining the winner
> (the night spinners weren't all that impressive, except occasionally),

        You only had 2, right? Take 6+ next time and keep them
on overwatch and watch what happens...

> 3) It is frustrating to have grav-tank Engines o' Vaul, and not be able
> to maneuver the darn things. I want to go backwards, and just can't do
> it.

        Their high movement plus the fact that they can move in
both phases generally means that they can retreat quite nicely
(you just have to sacrifice shooting for a turn). Or at least,
I've seen Erik pull off similar maneuvers against me when I
start getting too close to the dang things... I guess what you're
objecting to is that you can't retreat and still fire? but with
that movement you're already capable of more than the imperial
counterparts (the *tracked* counterparts - can tanks not move
backwards in the 41st millenia?). On idea from SM/TL that I
always liked is to allow titans (WEs in E40k) to move backwards
at half speed (1cm of moving back uses 2cm of movement).

> 4) I had some bikes in the front, and I put 'em on assault and hurried
> to the back in the movement phase to put a finish on the assault marines
> that got pushed out of the ruins. But the marines were finished in the
> shooting phase. In the assault phase, should my bikes move (at least) 5
> cm towards the place the marines were, or should they turn around and
> move at least 5 back the way they came? The rules directly interpreted
> would say the latter, but I think that isn't really the intent. This is
> a special case.

        Why? The bikes are on assault orders. They move towards
the closest enemy. The presence (or lack thereof) of their
original target is not an issue. Target A has run off the field,
let's go after target C.

Scott Shupe
shupes_at_... [email protected] http://www.rpi.edu/~shupes
***********************************************************************
"The only thing to fear is fearlessness" - REM
Received on Mon Apr 27 1998 - 16:05:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:10:35 UTC