Re: [Epic] Epic 40K Facts

From: Chad Taylor <ct454792_at_...>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 22:40:04 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, The Ogre wrote:

 
> Well, Close Combat now, is not neccesarily HtH stuff.
> It involves the surrounding units aswell (fire support) as the ones that
> are in b2b contact. So thats why it is know as an assault now, not
> Close Combat.
> So when you win, you drive em off where they were, you loose, well, you
> loose and you get pushed back, although there is no pursuit. Which I
> wonder about. Any Ground pounders out there? A question if you will,
> do you chase after the enemy once you have forced him off his patch to
> drive him into the ground, or just let him run?
> Although keeping that in mind, if the enemy doesn't retreat far enough
> they get wiped out, so I suppse that would sorta be the same thing. (?)
>
> You also get nifty little fire fights aswell.
>
> Laterz
>
>
>

E40k sounds about right to me, if I understand it correctly. In my
limited experience if we pushed them off we cut them down as they ran.
Actually, if you won you never really gave them the chance to run. The
one thing that didn't happen was trying to run them down, forget that.
After taking the position we would continue to move on pockets of
resistance, but nothing like charging after them like you might see in a
movie. If you are running you really can't shoot, and all you need is for
one of those guys to turn around and take one shot. Believe me, you are
far more concerned with getting your own shot off than with trying to play
tag.

So, if I understand, E40k says that if the enemy loses the assault it has
to retreat. If it ends X close to an enemy model it is destroyed, if it
is X farther away it survives. Sounds realistic (if simple) enough for
me. The only thing I would add is that the retreating (whichever side)
should take at least 50% casualties.

Chad Taylor
Received on Tue Apr 01 1997 - 03:40:04 UTC