Re: [Epic] got my Epic 40K

From: Ken Taborek <oberon_at_...>
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 07:29:17 -0400 (EDT)

Here's my two cents on this topic:

--Ken Taborek oberon_at_...
"Show respect for age. Drink good Scotch for a change."- random fortune



On Tue, 13 May 1997, David Lado wrote:
[chomp]
> >* I was hoping that the assault movement rules had been misread by huge
> > numbers of people, and that you only move a total of twice your normal
> > move (one normal move in movement phase, one in assault). But I saw
> > the sentence about infantry moving a double move into contact. Oh, well.
>
> It really has to be this way. If not, it would mean that most
> infantry would be snap-fired while setting up for a charge (due to the
> change in the turn order).

Um, it's pretty normal to be fired at when you charge into a bunch of guys
with guns! I'd like to try a house rule where snap fire is used in the
assault phase as well, but doesn't halt the charging units movement
(gung-ho momentum, and all). This would mean that the assaulting force
would lose ~16 2/3% of their force getting into contact (assuming hits
only on a 6). Not at all unrealistic.

> >* I'm not crazy about the implementation of the snap-fire rule. If it is
> > one stand of not-very-shooty troops, doesn't it seem like it would affect
> > you differently than if you came to the same distance of a huge detachment
> > of Devastators?
>
> Heretic! purge all thoughts of realism! ;) The snap-fire rules are
> entirely a game-balance rule to prevent vehicles and other fast troops
> from sweeping through enemy formations like they weren't even there.
Received on Wed May 14 1997 - 11:29:17 UTC