This came up in a discussion with ErikM.
He argued strongly for the second option, wheras I stand entrenched in the first option. So I became curious whats the prevailing view.
/Staffan

_________________
/Shoel
My Painting Corner

It depends on the system.
In many games, especially historical ones it's 1:many
In Epic and many other sci-fi and fantasy games it's its 1:1

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

You forgot the more burning part...  

Is half a minute* half a minute for all activations...?

Ie I say that Double and Triple are broken because you are allowed more actions (over the same timeframe) in them than in all other activations.

Apart from that - a good question indeed.

Erik

* Or whatever each activation represents...

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

It's actually stted in the rulebook that a turn represents a long period of time (15min).
"I have assumed that in any fifteen minute period most units will spend quite a lot of time doing nothing"

_________________
/Shoel
My Painting Corner

Ah! So that part is actually set then. Each activation is an equal amount of time. Then I can go ahead with saying that Double and March are broken then, as you're allowed to do twice in Double etc. But not a subject for this thread.

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

I don't think you *do* twice in a double. You do the same as in a normal move, sustained fire, etc.

certainly you move double, but you don't *do* double.

when doubling you shoot at -1. Because you are moving more and faster you have less opportunity to fire, and prepare for firing.

In a normal move you move more slowly and cautiously, but can spend more time firing and preparing to fire.

In a sustained fire you don't move at all, but fire more and prepare longer, so you get +1.

note that 'firing a shot in epic' is a bit of an abstraction. Each weapon doesn't fire one shot, but lots of shots over the 15 min period.

geddit?

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

geddit?

Oh yes, I geddit?.

Instead of embarking and then move at 30mph you embark then run at 60mph and then disembark.

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

So, does that mean your objection is based on the transport rules which can shut down part of the action (no fire while mounted), rather than the basic concept of the actions?

_________________
Neal

No, as the quote from the rulebook someone posted above says, in the "real world" analogy, the difference in the time it takes for a unit to complete the actions of a double move or march compared to a single move or a hold action is simply wasted time. The guys are just standing (crouching?) around and waiting, smoking space tobacco, or changing their socks.

I've never been in the military, but I did see Band of Brothers, and they did that kind of thing a lot. Same as the time I stayed in that Holiday Inn Express.

I think the key phase is, "hurry up and wait."

Or they could fire one more time... The waiting rut just isn't viable.

In the given time you can (basically) do two different things (walk and talk).

You can walk and shoot, you can trot and shoot, you can embark (/disembark) and "move" (the transport can "load" (/unload), move and shoot), you can also aim and shoot.

But the rules break up moving at high speed into several slow speed manouvers and treat them as if it ttakes the same time to move once as it takes to move twice or trice.

It's perhaps easier if thinking of the move as which speed is necessary to aschive things? A move would then (ex) be 15mph, a double 30mph and a march 45mph.
And I can believe in semi-accurate firing at 15mph and "covering" fire at 30mph and not able to hold the grip at 45mph.

Anyhow, it's how the rules are.
I feel they are broken (physics wise) but...
...it's no worse than JJ all of a sudden saying that a Leviathan is to small to carry void shields, when the even smaller war hound has two. And if that one has, then can the Baneblade easily have some too.
(Think Battletech tonnage...)

Now then, don't get me wrong, I love Epic!
I might not like the rules thou...

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

One model is one model.

Period.

Saying one model is 3 or 4 is the reason I don't play Command Horizon. If there's X models on a Base, then there's X models doing something in that area.

If you want more models, then use a system that can handle actually putting those guys on the table.

_________________
Fear is for the enemy, fear and bullets.
-James O'Barr, the Crow

when attempting to play re-enact large historical battles, for example the battle of Waterloo, it is impossible to have enough models for the battle. Such wargames mean that 1 model = 100s of men.

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

When I recreate large historical battles, I break out my cardboard warriors. I was a wargamer (like Avalon Hill games)long before I got into games that use minis.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

If I my memory is correct, even GW's own Warmaster is 1 to many

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]