I agree that a rule to allow the Supreme Commanders to have a beneficial impact on BM removal is also a good idea, and I don't have a
majorproblem with 2d6-1 for that effect for units VERY close to the SC. My own thoughts have gone more to "all detachments within
30cm of a Supreme Commander get d6+1 blast markers removed", so that the effect would be less game changing (more subtle) but still
meaningful to anyone within the 30 cm command distance ... fewer distances to remember, etc. This still gives a good reason for
Supreme Commanders, which many players just skip having right now. And, it encourages the Supremee Commander detachment to be used in
a central leading role within the army to maximize the number of detachments which get the automatic 2 BM's removed.
Andrew, what do you think about this suggestion?
However, I would still like to focus on my idea concerning dealing with the mega BM's in excess of MP's idea. We all can easily
remember our own MP levels for each detachment, since it is one of THE crucial numbers in the game. I am thinking that a detachment
which has been reduced to half or less of its units and lost its own MP factor already would no longer suffer BM unit destruction, but
just have to carry the BM's it gets with no relief ... after all, it is effectively combat disabled already. This would also
encourage players to retreat these disabled units to their rear areas and potentially remove them from their table edge to avoid the
cumulative BM effect on the total score. This is a proper command decision and operational level tactic that is virtually
non-existent in most player's repertoires. A few of my opponents understand and employ this tactic already, which makes them a bit
tougher to beat with big Disrupt units. But, the combination of these ideas makes for a more 'real' feel, IMO.
Greg
J Andrew Evans wrote:
> Yet again, why not allow detachments within 10cm (15cm) of their Supreme Commander to roll 2d6-1 for BM removal do to the
> inspirational effect of their Commander. Likely BM removal of 8BMs, even a 17+ disrupt might well be gone within two turns -
> especially if they retreat back to "mummy."
>
> Might help us need a Dominatrix.
>
> A#
>
> J Andrew Evans wrote:
>
> > Certainly, I think something needs to be done to circumvent the "huge number of BMs" problem as getting 17+ BMs on a single
> > detachment blows it out of a normally long game. The converting to hits idea is a good one for as you say monofilament wire must
> > kill someone eventually. The system you suggest strikes me as complex as it involves a lot of checking up on detachment Morale
> > etc which will disturb the game flow (which for me is a strenth of Epic). Wonder if some arbitrary limit like 10 wouldn't be
> > better as smaller detachments would be more likely to be surpressed than bigger ones so the bigger ones more likely to sort
> > themselves out.
> >
> > Alternatively, why not allow a "lucky" removal of more BMs on occasion. If the BM removal roll was a 6 roll a second dice and
> > add both numbers together. Therefore there would be a chance of removing 11 BMs in one turn if the dice went your way.
> >
> > A#
> >
> > Solzak_at_... wrote:
> >
> > > In a message dated 9/23/98 10:45:41 PM Central Daylight Time, greg_at_...
> > > writes:
> > >
> > > << Some of my 'Epic' friends (truly BIG folk ... sorry!) and I have been
> > > discussing the Disrupts (excessive) points we have touched on here
> > > recently. We like Thane's groups' idea about not deducting from Morale
> > > Points ay BM's in excess of the detachments total MP's. However, we
> > > think this does not entirely cover the effects we would like to
> > > recognize.
> > >
> > > Our thought is that the larger the detachment ... more points also means
> > > more MP's, the more BM's it can absorb before the suppression effect
> > > starts to become a dispersion and disorganization effect. We are
> > > thinking that once a detachment has as many BM's on it as necessary to
> > > be equal to its MP's, then additional BM's would be converted to "hits"
> > > or a unit destroyed. Our initial thought is to have every two BM's
> > > convert to 1 hit. However, this could be a different ratio, more
> > > variable and/or possibly race dependent. Our initial thought is that
> > > the Defender would select the unit to be "hit" or destroyed ...
> > > destroyed may be the better term, since we do not see allowing them to
> > > select a unit with a "Save", at least as long as another unit was
> > > available to be hit.
> > >
> > > This seems to address the rules problem or 'cheese shop' issue of
> > > excessive BM's causing a victory without combat.
> > >
> > > First, what do you think of this idea in general?
> > >
> > > Second, who would be willing to do some playtest to see what the correct
> > > ratio of BM's to units destroyed should be and how the rule would work
> > > in general? >>
> > >
> > > Personally it sounds great to me...It really does make since when you think
> > > about it...Monophiliment wire has to shred SOMETHING. Biovores have to land
> > > spores on SOMETHING. Snot from the contagions has to hit SOMONE. I personally
> > > love the idea.
> > >
> > > Scott
Received on Thu Sep 24 1998 - 18:49:48 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:10:54 UTC