silver towers(sheesh? 4+ invulnerable save? What's wrong with 4+ RA + reqular invulnerable? Effectively

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Hmm Silver Towers HAVE 4+ save with regular 6+ Invulnerbale.

_________________
www.tneva.net

you know that you don't HAVE to countercharge don't you...

Hope that helps,
R>

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army

Yes but of course that means they still aren't in range...

So my choices are: Stand still or move away from the formation that engaged them. Without that stupid rule I could move toward unit that assaulted me and get INTO the range!

In essence that unit that came to my rear is a) giving supporting fire b) denying me FF attacks in totally illogical rule. What? My troops have to either stand still, unable to shoot anything, or move toward enemy and then not use FF attacks against them in ongoing assault since they didn't assault me but only provide supporting fire? WHAT logic that is?

That shouldn't have been too hard to fix so why the triple darned loop hole is still there is beyond me. That's just plain broken rule!

Very illogical, very gamey, very much broken. That thing needs to be fixed ASAP and doesn't even take much of an effort. Can anybody point to single GOOD thing that rule accomplishes?

_________________
www.tneva.net

Supports and supporting fire can be misunderstood. The supports can only shoot at target uints in range and LoS of the attacking formation. So where the target formation is spread out, it is quite possible that the supports 'pin' part of the target formation, but cannot actually shoot.


A A A                       <------- 16cm ------>            S S  
 
A A A <----10cm ---> T T T T T T T T T T T < 5cm > S S

A A A                       < 5cm >                                S S


Here, only the first 4x Target units can countercharge the attackers, the remainders are closer to the Supports. However, the supports have no target because the 4x defenders that are in range to the attackers are 16cm from the supports.

While this may be considered somewhat 'gamey', the mechanic is there to prevent the even more gamey tactic of a huge support formation being used with a tiny attacking formation.

Unfortunately, the problem is caused by the principles underlying the assault mechanics which effectively requires combat between only two formations. Introducing supports etc causes situations that need various 'additional' rules to mitigate the effects. Basically to correct this you actually need to rewrite the entire assault process.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

What you hate is actually a feature of the assault rules

You may be angry at it, but really you are the one that left that opportunity there, from having a poor flank, or too wide a deployment, or whatever.

Basically your army is surrounded and failing apart under pressure. Next time maintain your lines and mutual supporting formations to avoid it

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

But why leave supporting units 16cm away when you can have them IN range?

Now you can have huge supporting unit supporting tiny assault unit and prevent target formation from FF'ing with bunch of units they would be able to shoot without supporting unit. Gamey as hell and actually makes that huge support unit + token assault unit MORE powerfull because they can limit number of shots assault unit has to face while providing tons of FF attacks in support.

_________________
www.tneva.net

There was no way I could have prevented that. That's totally illogical rule which has no basis whatsoever in reality. It's just abuse of rules without any logic whatsoever. That's the sort of stuff I except kids do in 40k. I didn't expect to face that in epic.

Ah well. Maybe it's time to throw all my epic models in garbage can.

_________________
www.tneva.net

Fix it with a house rule/rule for your tournaments that all counter charge moves are towards the engaging formation.

Personally I like it though

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

You like gamey rules which have no logic behind them and which accomplishes nothign except making sure small token assaults are even more broken with pretty much nothing you can do to prevent them from annihilating entire formations in one go just like that?

Dunno. I would prefer rules that would make sure tactics and strategy decide the game. Not abusing rules.

Ah well. Guess it's time to throw epic armies to garbage bin. I hate games where such gamey broken rules subject to abuse exists so why bother with epic then.

_________________
www.tneva.net

So you think if you go to the trouble of surrounding an enemy formation you shouldn't be rewarded? Even if it means the units concerned can simply run away in the opposite direction while under the enemies guns.

I have no problems, realism or otherwise, with part of the enemy being fixed in place by demonstrating to its front while an elites formation hit it from the side and cause much trouble and heartache. How many real life examples would you like?

Personally after spending 22 years playing wargames of all eras I have no problem with such an effect in game. Certainly it would not be a cause for me to quit.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Isn't tons of supporting fire with immunity to return fire(since they are supporting and not directly involved in assault) big enough reward already? Why make the token assault unit face even less shots to boot?

What's so fun about token clip assaults anyway they need to be beefed up to ridiculous level? They are already nearly impossible to defend if done by certain units so why make the situation even more ridiculous? Especially with totally illogical rule to boot.

Token clipping assaults are already pushing believability but this totally breaks it. "Hey there's units behind us! Let's move toward them! BUT DON'T SHOOT AT THEM! I know they are shooting at us but they aren't directly engaged with us so DON'T SHOOT THEM!". Why I doubt that order from unit leaders would make sense in real battle...

_________________
www.tneva.net

That's hardly problem. Move to other side of formation, be 6-15cm from target units and engage from other side. Plenty of units in range but whole bunch unable to counter charge toward anything meaningful.

Bleh. Stupid rules. Ah well. Since tyranids aren't allowed I won't be playing any tournaments anyway and ergo no epic games for me anyway. So atleast I won't have to be bothered by this anyway. Does mean I have tons of useless miniatures but what the heck. If they get too much in way there's always the garbage bin option.

_________________
www.tneva.net