I didn't claim it was abusing it I believe it is a valid tactic same as I think Vytzka's is a valid tactic.
What I was trying to show was your having a tantrum over something that you see as unrealistic but you then go and do something that is equally unrealistic in having a IG company support an assault when the IG company cannot take any damage themselves.

_________________
www.tneva.net

You've never played me so please don't start name calling.
Just because I don't agree with your views doesn't mean I'm a WAAC player.

If you support rules used only by WAAC players what else you are but WAAC player? Or do you support rules you don't even use yourself?   That would be quite a hypochricy.

_________________
www.tneva.net

tneva82, you have made my day. Calling dptsdexys WAAC, priceless    

dptdexys wins games by playing better than his opponent and having the odd killer dice roll. There is no way that he can ever be called a WAAC player.

Of course at his next tournament everyone will be winding him claiming that he is one now.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

He learned to be a WAAC player watching Russel    

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Haven't seen any evidence of that one. All evidence I have is that he supports broken illogical rule that is only used by WAAC players.

Alternatively he's populist being publicly on the more popular side regardless of how he really feels himself. Such hypochricy is even worse.

_________________
www.tneva.net

Ignoring the troll (who apparently is never playing Epic again, ever, ever, ever, stamp).

I suggested:

"The Counter-Charge must be made towards the nearest unit in the engaged enemy formation."

I seemed to have got the usual TacComms response (or non-response) of "Yeah, old'joe mentioned that in 1886, we decided it was bad".

Can I ask why?

It ensures you will always get more, not less, units into FF range of an enemy they're allowed to shoot at. It doesn't seem as gamey as the current rule.

Unfortunately I do agree with the troll in principle- it does not make sense for a unit to advance towards the enemy, then not open fire (even while being fired back upon) because that particular unit isn't in the 'engaged formation'.
Now I don't want elaborate, complex rules to allow shooting against Supporting Formations, that's messy and counter-productive to the chess-like decisions of Epic, but I think the rule above gives the defender more of a sporting chance at a plausible move.

On the subject of leaving Epic forever, dun, dun, dun...
Every wargame ruleset has flaws, loopholes and mistakes, every wargame.

I've played 40k, BFG, Necromunda, Warhammer, Mordhiem, Inquisitor- and of course Epic. And I can honestly say it is the most concise, well-written ruleset I've played (and so currently my top played game system).
Name another wargame, and I'm sure I or others can poke a dozen more rules holes in it (please don't say 40k, that would just be too easy).

If you haven't played other wargames yet, do so, it's an eye-opener.

I can't wait for your experiences with non-premeasure, where opponents know their arm length in inches.
Or the infamous 1" 40k rule where two intermingled squads mean you can't charge either...

Oh man, this is so funny.

The really sad thing is that tneva82 might actually even have a point, but the ridiculous way he has gone about raising it has ensured that noone will take him seriously.

tneva82: Do you really believe that calling everyone who disagrees with you "WAAC" is a sensible way to get people to take your opinions seriously?

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

This causes a problem when you have a large formation which could possibly counter charge a second formation, but would then be prevented in doing so by the restriction that they have to charge toward the engaging formation.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

How about if they had the option to go towards the nearest enemy unit OR the nearest engaged enemy unit?

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

K.I.S.S.  

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

I'll treat people the way they are. If they are WAAC I call them WAAC. If they are idiots I'll call them idiots.

I'm not politician so I'm not interested in PR. I'm more interested about truth.

If WAAC players want to have broken illogical rules feel free. I don't have to waste my time playing with WAAC's so I don't care anymore. If people don't want clean and balanced lists then they can have the broken and illogical ones. I have lot better rules for my home games already so if I can find some non-WAAC players to play with I can play balanced and logical games rather than broken illogical "official" ones.

_________________
www.tneva.net

Basically, it doesn't fix the problem.  It just changes it into a new one.

Support formations become invulnerable, even if they are the closest.  That's actually worse than the current situation where they can at least be attacked with CC.  The example I used is that Ork Warbikes cannot counter charge supporting IG infantry, even though the 10cm move could get them into base contact.  Instead, they are forced to ignore them and can only charge towards the engaging formation.

It should be obvious from that example that if the support formations cannot be attacked, you can do the same kind of channeling of the target formation by interposing the support formations.  The mechanism and unit positioning is different, but the net effect is still "I cannot charge units into the fight because of where the support formation is."

_________________
Neal

I support rules that I think are valid for a GAME of toy soldiers to make it fun and balanced.

Just because you got caught out by a rule doesn't make the rule WAAC.

I have used support formations to try to funnel target units to where I want them and I have faced players,especially Eldar,who have left me with little to fight back with.
I usually accept this as a good pincer/pinning move or class it as a kind of ambush by my opponent.

I've had the aircraft sniping used against me though I cannot recall ever trying using it.

I think  TRC (apologies if it wasn't you Chris) used it in a tournament game against me,all I thought was "damn I must be really good if he needs to try that".

What I don't do is have a tantrum because I lost a game to a rule I didn't like.

These aren't fun and definetely not balanced. As it is attacker already has effectively +5-6 advantage. This one makes it more akin to +7-8. Not many formations can overcome such odds.

It's totally illogical and unbalanced rule. For fun and balanced game that doesn't belong by a longshot. Warlord that costs 400 pts is lot more balanced than that rule.

_________________
www.tneva.net