RE: [NetEpic ML] More brainstorming

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:38:54 -0400

Hi!

Errr... then get rid of moral entirely, since tyranids don['t have to
roll for it...

Seriously, yes it's better for space marines and tyranids - but then
again, so are other things. "eden handed rules" are not part of the
epic universe... every race has it's bonuses and drawbacks.

Point taken.

I've lost maybe one or two titans to this tactic over the years(once
I stopped leaving my titans out in the open, that is) - and believe
me, it's tried every game at some point. I make sure I've got anti-
infantry weapons, and a screen of friendly infantry - sure it takes
some planning, but so does fighting any battle. between my infantry
and my gatling blasters, even tyranids can't get close enough to
bring down my titans. Well, it's a LITTLE harder with warhounds...

The thing is you spend the whole game defending against this and titans
behave in strange ways, hiding, lurking and other such things. Aren't
titans offensive platforms? Aren't they supposed to fear other titans?
The old unmodified rules just foments really strange actions where
titans spend the game "running ways" and playing defense, instead of
striding forth and kicking butt!

Why should one spend points on a titan to behave this way when they are
better spent on other troops that can cover more ground?

IMO the old rule narrows a titans perspective and they just wind up off
the battlefield in favor of other units.

To me, making a rule to prevent the use of a tactic that can only be
used if the titan player isnt paying attention doesnt make sense.
THAT is cheezy.

The thing is the tactic itself is cheesy and repetitive. The titan has
to always do the same thing game after game to defend itself against
infantry swarm, while the opponent always tries the same thing-swarm. It
gets pretty dull after a while. A titan is not an invulnerable thing,
but it was made to be aggressive and not worry too much about lowly
infantry.

It has a lot to do with a players view on titans. I grew up on AT and
infantry a very narrow chance (almost none) to take down a titan. The
best they could hope for is to damage it. If there were a rule to
simulate this in the current system I would use it. Problem is that if
you give infantry a chance to damage the way the damage table is built
there is a 1-2 in 6 change of destroying it. Way to much.

If I would use the original rules as is I would include the provision
that infantry could only cause damage equivalent to the roll of a 1 on a
D6 with extra hits adding an extra +1 for each successive hit to the
same location. In this manner it takes a bucket load of infantry to take
a titan down-as it should be.

Remember an infantry stand has 5 men on it. The way the old rules
worked, on average it took 30-40 men to bring down a titan. I don't care
how good they are 30-40 men mean nothing to a titan. Now a 100-200 men,
that's another story.

hell, I've been playing against tyranids lately - should I get rid of
the regeneration rules because they make me loose my ARMY every game?
Nah, I'm just going to work around it an come up with better tactics.

I realise that I'm in the minority here, but I reall don't see a
problem with the original rules. You loose the occasional titan,
sure... but only if you make a mistake - like any other unit.

I don't agree, you could play flawless and I'd still nail you titan with
massed infantry. Remember that there are ways to get to your titan
without going on foot or using transports: tunnelers, air transport,
units with warp capability, all these could engage you titan with a few
cheap troops from behind (thus negating any first fire you may have) and
easily swarm and take it out. How you protect a titan against these? You
can't. the rule makes it too easy to take a titan out this way.

I guess it depends completely on how you view titans. If you think
that they should be unstoppable war machines that cost you very few
points, then make them immune to infantry... however, you may want to
think about this:

Reaver titan: Point cost, roughly 500 points (that's what they were
in the original rules, and same with netepic with modest weapon load)

Shadowsword tank company: Point cost, 500

Why should the titan be immune to infantry when the exact same point
value of superheavies is NOT? I mean, the tanks are slower, have no
void shields, and don't have hit locations... so it's FAR easier to
destroy them even with direct fire... but they cost the same. The
titan has roughly the samed amount of firepower as 3 shadowswords
(depending on the load-out for the reaver) - but the reaver will
never worry about infantry. Even tyranid infantry, for the most part.

You just gave the reasons yourself. Super heavies are slow, no shields
and not hit locations. They aren't built to defend against swarms, a
titan is. Any fluff you read says the same things, hundreds of infantry
crushed underfoot, not a single one ever mentions a titan taken out by
infantry (although vehicles have, but that's a good thing!).

by making titans immune to infantry you make them immune to 1/2 of
the enemy army, usually. This CANNOT be free. you're doubling the
value of the unit, and not charging anyone extra points for it.

I think the main problem is that people LIKE titans... so it really
bothers them when they seem fragile, or vunerable to certain tactics.
I think that the rules should decide wether or not titans are merely
cool looking and useful war machines, or giant war gods. if it's the
latter, make them cost a LOT more.

The issue goes beyond that. Titans are the king of the battlefield. Epic
was invented this way. Originally you needed a titan yourself as your
only viable hope to take down an opponent's titan or a crapload of
vehicles. There are many games I have played or refereed in AT days were
the game was won or lost by losing you titans. The original does not
foster bringing titans because other units are more cost effective than
titans and can do more because they cover more ground. The only reason
to bring a titan is its firepower and resilience. The original rule
makes them brittle and easily taken out by anything so investment in
your own titans. A battle against a titan without one of your own is
supposed to be a risky thing. With the old rule, its sure thing the guy
WITH the titan will lose because there is a multitude of tactics (and
unfortunately cheap ones) to take it out or neutralize it. A titan, even
undamaged, that spends its game defending, hiding and defending against
infantry attacks are points not spent well, because the opponents
equivalent in other troops can perform a broader range of tactical
options than one titan can (just imagine 800 points of troops versus one
warlord. Its easy to try it down with a fraction of those 800 points
while the rest outnumbers your other forces).

ack. Sorry to get off on a rant - It's just one of the main rules
issues that I've got for netepic.

No problem! While consensus is good it is the differing opinion and the
voice of dissent that really makes net epic improve. Heck if it wasn't
for everyone jumping and shooting down my hair-brained ideas the game be
a mess.

I'll tell you one thing though; you have given me pause to once again
think about this issue. Perhaps somewhere in my head there's a solution.

Peter
Received on Wed Mar 28 2001 - 14:38:54 UTC