The Hellhound Flammenpanzerkamphwagen as a perfect example.
No much use with personal armour if drenched in Epic napalm, is there?

Apart from that I must say I prefer the totally opposite of more adversity.
In episcale AP/AT is quite enough. And if needed an additional "no save" or "ignore cover".

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

TRC, I am surprised at you  

In general CAPing a CAP or Intercept will work with a LIFO mechanism as you suggest. However, that assumes that everyone is playing 'follow-my-leader'.

Things start to get a bit strange when the successive formations go head-to-head (or otherwise fall into the arc of fire of an earlier formation) because defensive fire is not target specific while offensive fire is.

Personally, I think I almost prefer the idea brought up in the Elysian thread (IG) where two escorts were combined with a bomber as a single formation and all brought on together. This could easily be adapted by giving the Bomber "Commander" to activate the escorts at the same time

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

But the thing is your "first battle" was probably the Tournament Scenario, which is *designed* to be relatively quick... that's got nothing to do with the "core rules", but is scenario design.

In a scenario where objectives aren't important, but area control is, e.g. "Cleanse", you're going to play and move in a completely different way than when you're forces are showing up piecemeal as reinforcements, as in "Hold at Any Cost", which is completely different from a scenario where destruction of enemy forces is the goal, like an "Ambush".

"Trying to capture Objectives in Turn 3" is not all that playing EPIC is about... but it's, primarily, what the Tournament, or "Pitched Battle", is about.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

I know it will never be changed, but one thing that has always bothered me (and will probably always bother me) is shooting at things in cover. I don't understand the reasoning behind having a "to hit" penalty and granting a cover save. Shouldn't it be one or the other? In my mind either the shooter pays the -1 to hit penalty to shoot things in cover, but then the target doesn't get a cover save or the shooter doesn't pay the -1 to hit penalty, but then the target does get a cover save.

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

On separate MW stats, the point is that it would work much like artillery barrages already work - so AV would be more resiliant to Napalm than infantry. But the issue is really that MW are supposed to devastate an area rather than being unit specific, its just that the volcano cannon (or other MW) is more pin-point that an artillery barrage, and this whole argument stems from the fact that the current hit allocation rules arbitrarily take casualties from the front. Giving the weapon different stats could mean we make it harder for a given weapon to hit infantry - but you get to be very dead if it happens

That said, I do understand the concern over MW sniping (which is the antithesis of what MW should do IMHO), so I guess the debate must go further until we can come up with an acceptable compromise

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

In my mind, it's two effects combined into one:  Concealment, that is, an obscured target, granting the -1 to hit.  While the "material density" of the actual cover grants the save as it absorbs some of the shots/blast directed at the target.

The shooting in EPIC isn't "precision", it's "fire for effect", I believe is the term.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Well, an EMP weapon could be MW against AVs, since it ignores their armour, while having a negligble effect on infantry, other than some equipment failures or other lesser effects.

For example:

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Chroma, it's NOT effect on objectives or not on objectives. It's about believable manoeuvring.

Skip MW and TK both. If need be, then give the weapon a special ability.

"toHit and Save"
If in cover and on Advance or Prepared, then toHit penalty.
If in cover and on Prepared, then cover save plus.

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

Well a ) i am rusty but b) I thought it was clarified a while back that aircraft could only defensively fire at the formation attacking them, to prevent interceptors flying into the middle of enemy 1000 bomber raids and the system crumbling?

Personally, I think I almost prefer the idea brought up in the Elysian thread (IG) where two escorts were combined with a bomber as a single formation and all brought on together. This could easily be adapted by giving the Bomber "Commander" to activate the escorts at the same time

_________________
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

It is an effect of the objectives/victory conditions, in addition to the deployment options, in the scenario.

If, to claim an objective there was the condition, "A formation must be at half or greater starting strength to control an objective" you would use and manoeuver your forces in quite a different way from a condition that said "to control an objective a formation must have zones of control that cover an area 15cm around the objective"; vs the "a formations must have at least one model within 15cm and no enemy models within 15cm of the objective to control it."

All are plausibly and tactically valid ways of representing holding objectives... and produce quite different game play... and each could be a condition in a scenario.

If a scenario's goals were based on conservation of forces with no "objectives" on the board at all, it would produce a radically different "dance" than a King-of-the-Hill type scenario.

You manoeuver your forces for specific reasons, and those reasons are usually predicated on scenario goals.

Honestly, try playing a different scenario than the Tournament Scenario and see how the game changes.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

I do like MWAP and MWAT shots. Likewise I favour abolishing the current MW4+ - notes TK(1) etc and just making it TKAP/TKAT. So Guns can be AP/AT/AA, MWAP/MWAT/MWAA, TKAP/TKAT/TKAA, BP, MWBP, TKBP, or any mix thereof.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I'm sorry Chroma. The effects on objectives you talk of are bi-effects of the present movement rules. I really don't care about how they interact. I want sensible movement rules. That is my query.
And as people don't want to change that (core rule) I withdrew it.
(I'm still hard pressed to see the need of Tic-Tac-Toeish 40k in 6mm thou.)
(And everything that might end up changed here will affect balance.)

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

Try playing Cleanse and you'll see.  *laugh*

How else would you represent holding blocks in a city fight?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

How so? Player "A" flies on a combined bomber and escort formation, then player "B" brings in his CAP formation.

Granted that it does not permit more than two formations as currently, but there are usually so few air formations anyway that this is no great hardship at least up to 5000 points and probably higher.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

If you have to push TW and ignore my actual query, please do.

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