Re: [Epic] Problems with the old system

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 07:44:30 GMT

At 11:01 AM 13/1/97 -0500, you wrote:
>> From: "Seth Ben-Ezra" <Azathoth_at_...>
>>
>> Hello all you happy Epic players (and all of the pissed-off ones, too)!
>> We have been ranting and raving about Epic 40K now for some time and I
>> think that we have gotten most of it worked out of our system. (Well,
>> maybe not :] ) But, while we may love Epic, I think that it's safe to
>> say that it's not a perfect system. I have heard people say that the
>> system has its faults. Since I have only started playing recently and
>> still think that the game is flawless :) I would appreciate knowing
>> what people feel are some of the weaknesses and what new rules have
>> been devised to fill these gaps.
>
> One of the biggest problems in my mind is the collossal
>advantage gained by winning initiative, because of the manner in
>which the movement phase is handled. I've seen a bunch of different
>solutions to it; right now I've been playing with treating the
>movement phase like the first fire & advance phases - i.e. I move
>a unit, you move a unit, etc. Although that favors whoever has the
>most units... well it's a sticky problem.

We used to move company by company (with all of the company's support units
moving at the same time as the company) and we covered the "uneven numbers
of comanies" issue by moving 2 for every one or some such ratio so that at
the end of the movement phase it was one for one.

Then we figured that it wasn't making that much difference after all and
went back to I move an army - you move an army because it speeds things up.

Agro




>
> The most noticable problem is the obvious lack of real
>play-testing - new units with special-case powers whose interactions
>with other special cases are not made clear (doomweaver vs void
>shields), special-case powers whose effects are not clear at all
>(wave serpent), etc. This sort of thing is what the Q&As are for,
>but it would have been nice for GW to give the customers more
>complete rules to begin with.
>
>Scott
>shupes_at_...
>
Received on Tue Jan 14 1997 - 07:44:30 UTC