SM list |
|
Xavi
|
Post subject: SM list  Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 8:28 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:30 am
Posts: 939
Location: University of Essex, Colchester, UK (soon to be Brighton, Sussex, UK)
|
Hello,
well, I have finished reading the rules for epic. I think I got a general idea on how it works but I certainly need at least an other reread of them!  i have some doubts, though. One of the main ones I got was the following:
Let's say that I have an IG infantry company. If I give it the leman russ and fire support platoon upgrades do all of them need to shot at the same target? I know they need to get the same activation order as a whole (all of them march, all of them shot...) but I am unsure if they can split their fire between different enemy formations or not. I think they can't, but to make sure about it. Thnks in advance
Health and sixes,
Xavi
_________________
Commanding legions forward while sitting in a nice armchair.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
CyberShadow
|
Post subject: SM list Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 9:11 pm |
|
| Swarm Tyrant |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9337
Location: Singapore
|
|
My take on this (and this may not be 100% correct) is the following:
There are two types of additions to your core formation. The first type adds more units to the basic formations. So, you could add another six infantry stands to the basic 13 and a Hydra, making a total of 20 stands. In this case, the combined total are a single formation, and follow all rules such as remaining within formation distance and all shooting at the same target.
The second type is a small, seperate formation, such as a formation of three tanks. These are a completely seperate formation, dont have to stay anywhere near their 'parent' and are in no way linked, although they (obviously) have to stay within formation of the other two tanks.
_________________ https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond. https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Xavi
|
Post subject: SM list Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 11:44 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:30 am
Posts: 939
Location: University of Essex, Colchester, UK (soon to be Brighton, Sussex, UK)
|
|
Found it
"In addition, companies may be given up to three company
upgrades. Each type of upgrade can only be taken once by a
company (ie, an infantry company could have an Ogryn and
a Sniper upgrade, but not two Sniper upgrades). Upgrades
are added to the company and are not a separate formation.
Support formations may not be given company upgrades."
So, if you add a trio of tanks to an infstry company they must shot at the same targets and remain in formation with the rest of the company. Good to know. I thought it was like that, but was unsure.
Xavi
_________________
Commanding legions forward while sitting in a nice armchair.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
iblisdrax
|
Post subject: SM list Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 1:25 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 10:54 pm
Posts: 3381
Location: First star to the right, and straight on till morning.
|
|
Yeah, you got it right. Upgrades are part of the formation, support units are separate. Although you may want to check out the 'intermingled formation' rules, they can lead to some formations being considered as one.
my 2cents,
iblisdrax
_________________
"Have Leman Reuss, will travel"
"Hallo. My name is Indigo Montoya. You killed my father prepare to die!"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
dafrca
|
Post subject: SM list Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 2:46 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:02 pm
Posts: 10956
Location: Burbank, CA, USA
|
One game, just for fun, we each tried to make the least number of formations. Made for some odd but fun games. I had each of my "formations" with the max number of upgrades. 
It was fun for once, but be careful with upgrades or you will be playing this kind of game one sided. 
dafrca
_________________
"Every Man is a But Spark in the Darkness"
- Cities of Death, page 59
Come fight me, if you dare...... http://dd-janks.mybrute.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tas
|
Post subject: SM list Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 5:44 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:01 am
Posts: 7823
Location: Sydney, NSW
|
|
This split fire issue is one of the major points for argument between many in EA circles.
ie The "But my tanks aren't effective firing at those soft infantry targets and so wont fire at them"
vs
the "you can t see any other closer immediate threats so your guys must open up on them i preference to others"
it goes around, and around... but yes your interpretation that the upgrades have to fire on the same target is correct unless you have a local or club rule for the above argument...
_________________
Tas
My General blog: http://tasmancave.blogspot.com/
My VSF Blog: http://pauljamesog.blogspot.com/
My ECW Blog: http://declaresir.blogspot.com/
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Serps
|
Post subject: SM list Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 1:14 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 2:47 am
Posts: 388
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
|
The good thing about Russes is that they're bloody good against everything. I wiped out a CSM Chosen detachment with only 7 tanks and a Hydra, on Advance orders.
(stupid Bloodthirsters shrugged off the lascannon fire though. 2+ armour save, cripes!)
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Mojarn Piett
|
Post subject: SM list Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:54 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 7:35 am
Posts: 5455
Location: Finland
|
| Quote (Tas @ 05 2004 Sep.,05:44) | This split fire issue is one of the major points for argument between many in EA circles.
ie The "But my tanks aren't effective firing at those soft infantry targets and so wont fire at them"
vs
the "you can t see any other closer immediate threats so your guys must open up on them i preference to others"
it goes around, and around... |
Yep. I have always found it strange that a whole bloody company has to blast at the same target. A platoon I can understand but a compay? 
Personally I'd like to see the fire priority system from Spearhead where tanks and AT weapons have to shoot at tanks and infantry has to shoot at infantry whenever possible.
Plus the last argument is, IMO, flawed. What would an Anti-TANK gun detachment shoot if it was supporting some infantry? The charging enemy infantry? Or the enemy tanks they're supposed to protect their infantry from?
I'm really glad that the few AT-guns our forces had in the Winter War didn't follow the E:A firing system...
_________________
I don't know and I let who care. -J.S.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
iblisdrax
|
Post subject: SM list Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:38 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 10:54 pm
Posts: 3381
Location: First star to the right, and straight on till morning.
|
|
I really hate being forced to fire on a particular unit simply because it is closer and therefor, a greater threat. I thought the commander of a unit was supposed to determine whether or not to fire on the charging infantry, or fire on the tanks behind them (who WILL cause him more damage) and take whatever the infantry dish out. So I am a fan of Epic:A's orginal rules that allow you to shoot whatever target you want, as long as it is in range. And remember, even if you only have AT weapons, you can still fire and leave a blast marker on the target formation. I know it is not much, but against an assaulting force, one BM could be the difference between victory and defeat.
my 2cents,
iblisdrax
_________________
"Have Leman Reuss, will travel"
"Hallo. My name is Indigo Montoya. You killed my father prepare to die!"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Xavi
|
Post subject: SM list Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:58 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:30 am
Posts: 939
Location: University of Essex, Colchester, UK (soon to be Brighton, Sussex, UK)
|
Ok, seems that here we have a bunch of people ranting about the fact that the companies should opperate as platoons when it comes to firing.  Actually I would argue that they should _act_ independently (so you can deploy a tank company in 3 plattons of 3-4 tanks each) but then we get a game with a lot more formations and a lot more orders as a consequence. Gains realism and flexibility, but it seems that the system is not designed in this way. Or so can be argued.
Still, the rule is clear. If it is part of the formation it shots at the same target as the rest of the formation. It is one reason why I will take support fire platoons in an infantry formation but not tanks if I have to chose between them. Sad but true.
Regards,
Xavi
_________________
Commanding legions forward while sitting in a nice armchair.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Legion 4
|
Post subject: SM list Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:59 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36947
Location: Ohio - USA
|
That might be the answer ... shoot at whatever target is within range ...
_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Xavi
|
Post subject: SM list Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 4:20 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:30 am
Posts: 939
Location: University of Essex, Colchester, UK (soon to be Brighton, Sussex, UK)
|
|
Or being able to subdivide a formation into platoons that opperate independently on the battlefield. You could give the same order to the whole company (double move, sustained fire...) but then each platoon acts independently.
Additionally, an other option would be that if you want a platton in the formation following a differnet order or acting out of formation with the parent company command (out of formation with the formation where the command unit is) they get a -1 to their activation roll. Means that they would still opperate better together, but that you could have much more flexibility there.
All the actions of the company are done at the same time.
Xavi
_________________
Commanding legions forward while sitting in a nice armchair.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Mojarn Piett
|
Post subject: SM list Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 7:26 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 7:35 am
Posts: 5455
Location: Finland
|
|
That's more or less what I have thought: Each company gets one order as before but for shooting each platoon counts as a separate formation.
_________________
I don't know and I let who care. -J.S.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
MaksimSmelchak
|
Post subject: SM list Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 8:36 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 4:43 pm
Posts: 7258
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
|
|
Unit upgrades are odd for E-A Sms...
It's very hard to get Predators or LRs... as upgrades...
Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Xavi
|
Post subject: SM list Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:27 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:30 am
Posts: 939
Location: University of Essex, Colchester, UK (soon to be Brighton, Sussex, UK)
|
| Quote (Mojarn Piett @ 07 2004 Sep.,07:26) | | That's more or less what I have thought: Each company gets one order as before but for shooting each platoon counts as a separate formation. |
Well, I was proposing even more flexibility than that, with each squadron acting on their own like an independent formation, kaving to keep a coherency with other formations in their company of say 20 cm instead of 5. You would get a -1 to activation rolls in that case, though. But yup, more flexibility in general.
Xavi
_________________
Commanding legions forward while sitting in a nice armchair.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
