Erik Rutins wrote:
> > 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
> > LOS, they're safer than if they could use cover. What about range? I
> > realize that this is an issue that any game that is sampling the
> > at certain times will have.
>
> LOS is LOS and if you end out of LOS you can't be shot at (except by
> artillery and planes). What about range?
The range question had to do with--if most of my march move was within
range of enemy units, but I end up out of range, the march move didn't
really make me any more vulnerable.
The LOS comment is the same: if most of my march move was in LOS of
enemy units, but I end up out of LOS, the march move didn't really make
me any more vulnerable.
I've wondered about making the march move guys move twice their normal
move in the movement phase, and once again in assault, just to give some
point at which they could be shot at along the way. Or say an enemy
could take a shot at whatever seems the most favorable spot.
> > 2) I think the most blast markers any detachment had after removing
> > in the rally phase was 2. This with tons of blast markers laid down,
> ... snip ...
> > faced a large number, so I'm sorta reacting against how I saw the game
> > was playing in. But I've seen the problem on both sides.
>
> Weren't you proposing removing _more_ blast markers a few months ago?
I don't think so. I've made proposals that slightly increased the
average (use minimum of two dice, so results can be from 1 to 6), but in
general wanted most common results to be lower. I don't really want a 6
result to be possible, so the latest version says use the lower of two,
but double 6s mean 0.
> Make a house rule - I agree that it's strange War Engines can't back up,
> especially grav tanks and things with legs. However, EOVs are still
> darned maneuverable for war engines and with the Scorpions' 360 degree
> fire field it's not too tough to keep them safe and sound.
Yes. By far the real problem was the situation they were in--way too
close. (Until I remembered the 30cm firepower. :)
> > 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
> > would say the latter, but I think that isn't really the intent. This
> > a special case. I ended up moving them 5 towards where they were
> > intending to assault, as if they saw that the marines were done, but
> > took a bit more to stop, anyway. They didn't have time to turn around
> > and go towards the troops behind them.
>
> I think the intent of the rule is to move no further away from whatever
> enemies are around you when you're making your move. I don't think they
> intended you to select a target at the beginning of your movement phase
> and barrel on no matter what. You are allowed to adjust to battlefield
> events and change your target after shooting phase results. I do it
> regularly, both because of matters beyond my control and as a
> feint/bluff method.
The question was more whether I had to adjust to battlefield events,
than whether I was allowed to. Since I sent those jetbikes back to hit
somebody in my back lines, and didn't want them to go after the guys
behind them, it didn't make any sense that they would spin around and go
after the guys they were running away from when their real targets were
gone. However, with no support for this kind of thing in E40K, this
sort of flexibility doesn't really work. When the possible enemies
weren't so far apart, it would be easily mis-used. They don't want
Assault orders to be used for fast movement, without the penalties that
March moves have, I guess.
andy
--
Andy Skinner
askinner_at_...
Received on Tue Apr 28 1998 - 21:47:37 UTC