Re: [NetEpic ML] Regarding Epic40K- Armageddon Playtest

From: markconz <markconz_at_...>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:44:19 -0000

Hi Jyrki, comments below... :)


--- In netepic_at_y..., <jyrki.saari_at_n...> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Remember that not all 300 subscribers to list this list are
players
> > of net-epic! I suspect there are many like myself who just lurk
here
> > to keep an eye on all you damn heretics :) ... and pick up some
cool
> > rule or miniatures ideas now and again.
> >
>
> Hmmmm, it sems we have been infiltrated. Oh well, that inquisitoral
purge is long overdue anyway :P
>
> Seriously, here's what I think.
>
> > I for one have no desire to return to the turgid shooting duels
of
> > editions before E40k (the One True Game). Why resolve firing of 3
> > tanks at a time when you could resolve the fire of an entire
company
> > in the same time?
>
> Because to me Epic isn't company-level game. Why have individual
half-squads and command units if you're going to do the shooting at
company level? Why not just have company markers?


Because it is a miniatures game not a boardgame, and because having
individual removable units is a good way to keep track of casualties
upon a company.


>
> > Why have several dice rolls to resolve hitting and
> > armour effects when it can all be rationalised into a single die
> > roll?
>
> At this level (with individual vehicles) that is IMO way too
abstract. When I want that I play a game of Spear Head or Modern
Spear Head.

Why is it too abstract? Perhaps there is not enough variation on a 6
sided dice to give the subtlety in results you are after. In which
case perhaps you could use dice with more sides - this would still be
more elegant than making several dice rolls for one shot!

Also surely people are attracted to a system called 'epic' because
they want to play big 'epic' battles (like the ones out of star wars
for instance!). Should you be expecting such small scale complexity
from a game called 'Epic'!

>
> > Why issue orders to platoons when you should be issuing them
> > to whole companies?
>
> See above.
>
> > The name of the game is Epic not Squad Leader.
> > Space Marine reminds me too much of those old moderns and ww2
rules
> > where u had to roll to spot a target, then roll to hit, then roll
to
> > penetrate, then make individual morale tests for tiny little
sections
> > of your force... uh! no thanks...
> >
>
> I'd rather do that, but then again it is just a matter of style. I
prefer more detailed games to the "Risky" ones. As for the morale, it
is _really_ rare of a whole company break at the same time. Usually
the erosion happens one coherent unit (platoon) at a time.

Maybe, but in the bigger scheme of things it is more important to
know whether you have something or nothing of a company in a position
still fighting. If elements of a company are failing moral I think
there are more elegant ways of representing this than making time
consuming morale checks for each little unit. eg. supression, units
removed.

> > Also a number of 'realism' factors annoyed me about Space
Marine...
> > Why do you always have to kill something to affect morale, and
why
> > can troops move even under heavy fire?! I'm not sure if net-epic
> > addresses these mind u.
>
> Killing something is a prime way to affect morale. However, you are
right about suppression. It is one of the major things missing in the
NetEpic and will probably contionue to do so. However, in E40k it is
as easy to suppress Land Raiders as infantry or even more so. And I
really don't think tanks care that much about lasgun fire.

Your comments misrepresent the E40K system IMO. Infantry at close
range (or with long range anti-tank weapons) can suppress tanks, but
usually they would be obliterated from a distance. From playing many
games of E40k I know that only specialist anti-tank infantry have a
hope against land raiders (or assualt infantry who can get close
enough). Also as the rules state, it is not the lasguns that can
affect tanks, but the heavy weapons, or antitank grenades etc that
squads with a FP stat carry. Also note that in the real world, even
a machine gun would force a tank to batton down the hatches,
significantly reducing its visibility and effectiveness (thinking of
WW2 here).

Remember that in E40k infantry squads with only small arms and
grenades have a range of only 15cm and 1 FP. An average tank has
45cm range and lots more firepower (as well as much higher armour
ratings). Unless the infantry get very close (such as in a built up
area) it will be no contest.

In short saying that landraiders are as easy to suppress as infantry
is only true of a narrow range of battlefield circumstances, and
those circumstances are cases where the landraiders should be
supressed as easily (ie ambushed in a town aka 'Saving Private Ryan'.)

>
> > Also the play balance and character of
> > armies in E40k (with a few exceptions) appeals to me a lot more
in
> > E40k than it did in space marine. Eg. Eldar really capture the
feel
> > of a swift deadly, but brittle rapier that needs to choose when
and
> > where it strikes with care... hit and fade. Beats the old
eldar 'tie
> > things up with aspects and bikes and shoot them from a distance'
of
> > the previous editon.
> >
>
> Yes, but the character of different weapon systems has totally been
lost. Now everything is just "moving firepower" with no difference
whatsoever between vehicles and infantry.

Well I would argue differently :) Infantry is used to take difficult
terrain, it dies in the open, and must be transported or else it is
very slow. Tanks offer the most concentrated firepower and armour
per unit frontage and are fast, great for breaking through a
weakpoint. Small differences in stat line produce huge differences
in battlefield role.

>That and the possibility of hodgepodge detachments with tanks
infantry and bikes doesn't exactly appeal to me.

This criticism is a bit like me saying that the possibility of people
using all bike armies in netepic does not appeal to me, sure such
armies are possible - but that does not mean people use them or that
they work. (Actually a friend did use a huge mostly jetbike army in
Space Marine and it was not that bad so perhaps this is not the best
example...)

Hodgepodge detachments as you describe are possible but are not very
efficient. They tend to get slaughtered by more specialised
detachments. No-one I know uses detachments such as the ones you
describe, not after the first time anyway! Most of my detachmetns
consist of 1 main unit type. Tanks, or infantry (perhaps with
transports), or artillery (perhaps with AA), or bikes, or speeders.

>
> > The changes Jervis is proposing sound to me like they still leave
> > good macro level mechanics and game play, but add more 'realism'
if
> > that is the right word for a science fantasy game... Weapons
> > specialised against either infantry or armour (something that
bugged
> > me more in theory than practice about E40k), and the flanking
rules
> > which is not something that I had considered much. Also the unit
> > activation system sounds interesting, if we could do away with
order
> > counters/dice I would be very happy.
> >
>
> I have no problem whatsoever with the proposed changes except that
they should've been present from the start.


True.


>
> > I do agree with comments made here about the sort of audience
Epic
> > appeals to. I and many other historical gamers cruised into Epic,
> > especially when E40k was released, in spite of enormous
difficulties
> > because of the crappy release schedules and marketing... we do
not
> > play other GW games, though BFG and warmaster have their appeal...
> >
>
> Warmaster is probably the best GW game ever to see the light of
day. BFG is quite nice although the starships are obviously from the
pre-dreadnought era, but still...
>
> > I also agree that the netepic list is a very pleasant bunch of
> > people, as is the epic list... In fact I have remarked on other
lists
> > that if they want to see an example of netiquette with never a
flame
> > in sight they should join the epic list... totally seriously.
> >
> > Anyway looks like the soul of epic is up for grabs... the die is
> > cast, hats are in the ring :) Maybe its time I and others told
> > Jervis that we do actually like much of his E40k mechanics!
Gotta
> > stop u netepic guys sticking in rules giving gretchin stands 3
attack
> > types including a 'pet squig attack' and the like ;)
> >
>
> 3? Bah, we're going to add the pet squig's cyber-flea attack, the
Orky Breath, tossed fungus beer cans and Nobz' armpit chemical weapon
for starters. After we get to monday morning we will _really_ get
evil :P

I knew my fears were well founded ;)

>
> > Markco
> >
> > P.S. I have shown netepic to a fair number of people over the
last
> > couple of years so I'm not all bad... :)
>
> Our interrogator-chaplain promises to kill you quickly if you
repent ;)

Never! :)

Markco

>
> > Look foward to jousting with u guys anyway...
> >
> >
>
>
> Jyrki Saari
>
> -There is no such thing as free lunch because eating takes time and
time is money.
Received on Fri Mar 15 2002 - 12:44:19 UTC