Close combat interpretations: the good, the bad and what to do.

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 19:47:39 -0500

Hi!


Nothing engenders conversation than a good ol' discussion about the core mechanics. The latest one is regarding which interpretation to follow. As everything in life there's two sides to the coin let's go in to them regarding the two alternatives:

1. Attackers can selectively engage troops and gang up on specific units while not engaging others.

The good.

A certain amount of tactics goes into assaulting a position by this method, more so if you are attacking with a smaller elite force. Anything that adds some thought to the game is a good thing and there is a certain amount of punch and counter punch to be done. Players must more cautiously use reserve since a small force may attack a flank of a superior foe and leave the others out to dry. The resolution is dirty and chaotic, but an aura of uncertainty as to the outcome keeps players guessing. Also armies that rely on small hard hitting troops can really maximize what they do best (i.e aspect warriors)

The bad

The so called "tactics" does permit an unhealthy amount of cheese mongering since you can by pass a carefully laid out defense by pinning the few models that compose one flank and take the objective with a second unit without much risk or loss. This also provokes cheese from the defense too, since the defending player can use such infamous tactics as "Pete's Hanovarian square" tactic, where you place your models side by side in a square (or circle) and place one unit in the interior of the position to hold the objective. There is no way the opponent can charge and engage that last stand in one turn. Many a game has been lost this way with one stand holding the objective in a sea of enemy models. It's a legal move but cheesy in extreme. In addition to enengage some and not others leads to highly unrealistic methods of making VP's. If the game is constantly in motion, it kinda sucks to see 3 out of 5 models engaged on purpose so as to break them. also combat tend to drag out to much with the charge and counter charge that occurs in subsequent turns.

2. Attackers MUST engage all units within reach once before ganging up occurs.

The good

Combat is treated more as a group-to-group affair as in essence it should be. Numbers mean something, as a numerically superior foe should and can have an edge under these rules. Combat tends to be slighly more decisive and ends in a turn or two. Its more orderly and easier to keep track of. It also avoids cheesy ploys regarding positioning of troops like above.

The bad

A certain amount of thought is lost in this process and thus some tactics. The group-to-group affair eliminates the wise opponents capitalizing on the fioes bad deployment. The defender has to think less on WHERE to place his troops and thus the attacker has more of a burden in figuring out how much more troops he needs to bring in. You also eliminate the ability of small groups of elite troops to strike at one point in the line. Its funny but these troops are actually better defending that attacking under these rules. A squad of eldar banshees could never hope to overcome all of a IG platton on the attack since it can't outnumber it, but an attacker would need to dilute its superiority in numbers against them before ganging up when attacking them. Quite odd. Also this method requires clearing up a lot of specific situations and anomalies


Is there a solution?

Perhaps....

Why not MERGE the two? How? Easy....

There has been some thought on elite troops and that there status isn't much of a boon. Why not designate elite status, in addition to its current ability versus titans, as troops who can selectively pin?

Thus the bulk of epic troops are the mindless drones the background makes them to be: IG tactics, ork boys, eldar guardians all would charge and enegage all before ganaging up.

The elite troops however are smarter, they see teh battlefield and exploit the holes in the line.

This has the advantage of using something already present in epic without fancy rules and exceptions.

All good? Not quite.

It requires assigning elite status to a few more units, but not that many more and this is mainly a editing issue me and Daniel can handle.

Well? Speak up inquiring minds need to know!

Peter
Received on Sat Nov 04 2000 - 00:47:39 UTC