Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
*sigh*
05-02-2013, 10:16 PM, (This post was last modified: 05-02-2013, 10:19 PM by vince hughes.)
#18
RE: *sigh*
Wayne,

I actually think the fleeing rules are not too bad. Certainly better than the old SL rout rules at any rate.

Players need to remember when DEM troops are in flee mode that they should play as if they have NO control over these units at all. All too often, players want to flee their DEM units where the player wants them to flee. Instead, we should be in the mind of the imperiled platoon who are only interested in self-preservation. Once that concept is grasped and accepted, the flee rules work out pretty good. A simple example of this is to always remember to move them FURTHER away from DF that can hurt them. Moving them an equal distance in hexes away from units that can hurt them is NOT an option, but instead, a last resort when FURTHER away is not available.

That said Wayne, you may have something else about them that you are alluding to and that might be worth placing in a post here (for discussion or other takes). For me, I think the flee rules are pretty workable.

BTW - On the Penal units, the designer that wrote those did make it clear that the way you suggested was in error and that the 'majority' view was correct. In other words, if FOW has not interrupted the turn they HAVE to be activated each turn. They HAVE to advance toward the nearest enemy etc

Proof reading is awful and some (or plenty of) scenarios are simply missing development as we have experienced in one or two. These things make us pull our hair out I know. If nobody else does, I will one day write and try to get accepted a complete and well-cross-referenced 4th edition rules.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
*sigh* - by Shad - 11-28-2012, 06:16 PM
RE: *sigh* - by vince hughes - 11-28-2012, 11:27 PM
RE: *sigh* - by Poor Yorek - 11-28-2012, 11:42 PM
RE: *sigh* - by larry marak - 11-29-2012, 12:53 AM
RE: *sigh* - by Shad - 11-29-2012, 01:06 AM
RE: *sigh* - by plloyd1010 - 11-29-2012, 02:06 AM
RE: *sigh* - by Shad - 11-29-2012, 02:26 AM
RE: *sigh* - by plloyd1010 - 11-29-2012, 02:54 AM
RE: *sigh* - by larry marak - 11-29-2012, 02:43 AM
RE: *sigh* - by vince hughes - 11-29-2012, 02:44 AM
RE: *sigh* - by J6A - 11-29-2012, 03:56 AM
RE: *sigh* - by plloyd1010 - 11-29-2012, 04:17 AM
RE: *sigh* - by Hugmenot - 11-29-2012, 04:38 AM
RE: *sigh* - by plloyd1010 - 11-29-2012, 04:59 AM
RE: *sigh* - by Texagony - 05-02-2013, 11:43 AM
RE: *sigh* - by JayTownsend - 05-02-2013, 02:01 PM
RE: *sigh* - by waynebaumber - 05-02-2013, 07:38 PM
RE: *sigh* - by vince hughes - 05-02-2013, 10:16 PM
RE: *sigh* - by waynebaumber - 05-03-2013, 01:05 AM
RE: *sigh* - by Hugmenot - 05-03-2013, 02:07 AM
RE: *sigh* - by vince hughes - 05-03-2013, 06:51 PM
RE: *sigh* - by upintheattic - 05-16-2013, 10:12 AM
RE: *sigh* - by JayTownsend - 05-16-2013, 10:50 AM
RE: *sigh* - by Shad - 05-16-2013, 11:21 AM
RE: *sigh* - by upintheattic - 05-17-2013, 03:17 AM
RE: *sigh* - by vince hughes - 05-17-2013, 02:08 AM
RE: *sigh* - by andrewla - 06-15-2013, 01:03 AM
RE: *sigh* - by plloyd1010 - 06-15-2013, 01:17 AM
RE: *sigh* - by Hugmenot - 06-15-2013, 01:44 AM
RE: *sigh* - by plloyd1010 - 06-15-2013, 02:34 AM
RE: *sigh* - by andrewla - 06-15-2013, 06:55 PM
RE: *sigh* - by Hugmenot - 06-16-2013, 12:47 AM
RE: *sigh* - by andrewla - 06-19-2013, 08:04 PM
RE: *sigh* - by Shad - 06-19-2013, 09:55 PM
RE: *sigh* - by andrewla - 06-20-2013, 09:13 PM
RE: *sigh* - by larry marak - 06-21-2013, 12:25 AM
RE: *sigh* - by andrewla - 07-14-2013, 05:20 PM
RE: *sigh* - by Shad - 07-15-2013, 01:21 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)