>I agree with you about initive(We always placed orders after initiave.)
>=
This reduced the effect of it some. Of course now CC and FF depend on a
>si=
ncle dice roll. This can give some weird results unless you massivly
>overp=
ower your opponent. I've seen a side lose when it side has double
>the CC =
of the other and more Blast Markers. It's the sort of thing that
>just does=
n't look right. In 2ed odditites of luck could happen, but they
>would only=
afffect one stand, i.e. over a number of close combats it
>tended to avera=
ge out, and there was one CC per stand.
This effect doesn't bother me as m=
uch. I don't like being able to
mathmatically decide the outcome of a clos=
e assault before it begins.
I like the fact that a rare event can throw a m=
onkey wrench in the
best laid plans (that's life), plus it allows for the "=
heroic stand" :).
Plus, the odds of an upset a fairly rare, if the attacke=
r has a +2
on his opponent, then their is a 5/9 chance that either the atta=
cker
will roll 5 or 6 (automatic win) or the defender will roll a 1 or
2 (a=
utomatic loss). I'm not very good with statistics, but I would
guess this =
comes out to a roughly a 20% chance of a favorable result
for the underdog.=
That's not too bad.
>Also, even right
>now initive is powerfull, especia=
lly in the assault and movement phases.
>Initiave is less important in shoo=
ting, because you alternate. I wish
>initive was not so powerfull. Because =
of the power of CC and FF, the
>side that attacks usually wins, if they kno=
w what they are doing. Then
>their opponent is broken, and can't do anythin=
g.
True. Maybe you could alternate moving units in the assault phase and
=
resolve everything as one giant scrum at the end of the phase (that
might b=
e interesting :).
Interesting point. My previous point was that in second =
ed there was a wider variance in the individual CC, but not much in the ove=
rall one. For instance, 10 trolls attack 10 guardsman, heroicly one kills h=
is opponent, but it doesn't matter, because all the rest died. In E40K this=
would tip the favor of the entire combat, resulting in the superior side b=
eing broken. I like your idea of alternating assaults. Also, how about havi=
ng all units within 15cm support CC. I can't see troops refusing to supprot=
their brethren just because they are in a diffrent detachment, just only t=
he ones invovlved can be broken. Just a thought.
--------------------------=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------
"Your incorrect assumptions are threefold."
"You assume law still=
reigns in the Five Galaxies"
"You assume that we would be bound by precede=
nts and precepts from the last 10 million years."
"But your most incorrect =
assumption of all is to assume that we care."
-David Brin, Infinity'=
s Shore
-----------------------------------------------------James Nugent--=
--------------------------------------
- application/ms-tnef attachment: stored
Received on Mon Jul 07 1997 - 16:53:13 UTC