alsted wrote:
Fair enough, but please clarify to me, is it:
1. Suppression as a rule concept that drives the main aspects of the game (EA as I understand it).
2. Suppression as the concept of binding the enemy with fire to hinder him movement, fire and/or other operations.
I can understand 1 from the amount of ill will generated during change to E40K/EA , but 2 seems so logical to me since it enables fire and movement as a viable tactic.
Best
Jens
All of it.
It would add a tier of book keeping which I would rather not see introduced into the game. If players really like the concept of suppression in Epic, then they have the option of playing EA.
You can hinder movement in SM2 and Net Epic through tactical play. A rule is not required to achieve this effect.
Primarch: There are already so many optional rules floating around. Do we really need any more? I know that you like to say 'yes' to almost everything, and it's very generous of you. At some point, however, I do feel that a line has to be drawn. We cannot keep track of a seemingly endless set of optional/house rules.
_________________
Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente.