Re: [Epic] Creating new version of Epic

From: Aaron P Teske <Mithramuse+_at_...>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:40:56 -0500 (EST)

Excerpts from Epic: 14-Jan-97 Re: [Epic] Creating new ver.. by Perrin
> Speaking of fire arcs, here is another gripe of mine: The massive 360
> attack dice of the Squat (and some Imperial) SHV's. IMHO, the Collossus
> should have *two* 180 fire arcs, divided down the middle of the vehichle.
> Four Battlecannon shots to side. Similiar things could be done with the
> Leviathan and its Lascannon at three to a side, with the top-mounted turret
> staying 360 as per above. I think the bolters on all SHV's ought to stay
> at 360, too. This adds to realism (look at the model), but doesn't take
> away too much fire power.

I wouldn't say that. There were reports posted a year or so ago by
someone who did just that with the fire arcs, and losing the "massive
dice attack" *seriously* affected the Colossus, Leviathan and Overlord.
Typically this'll call for a change in playing style, ie you have to put
the SHVs in the middle in order to use both gun banks, but the things
are currently so bloody effective at holding a flank on their own that
the change can be very hard to make -- not to mention (IMO) inefficient,
since it gives many more units the option of pounding on the SHV. (And,
unlike Warhound Titans, Squat SHVS have touble taking repeated

If you were going to restrict fire arcs on the SHVs, then you should
certainly do so for the vehicles (Land Raider, for instance) and Titans.
 In the 1st ed. rules, each arm had a 135 degree arc, and the carapace
mounts are forward 90 only, not forward 180. This makes the support
missiles *much* harder to use, since not only to you have to have LOS
but fire arc as well, I think. (Though I'd have to check on this.)

> Speaking of Squat SHV's (here we go again), I'd like to see if we could
> implement the optional rules that give them armor saves like Titans. I
> don't remember how powerful the rules made them, but we could increase
> point cost if needed. They were posted on a web-page, but I lost the url.
> Any comments?

One person did some game-playtesting (as opposed to me, just rolling
dice in mock battles) and said that the templates helped a little, but
not much. Then again, his opponent had a Titan-hunting loadout with
Volcano Cannon, which'll do in Titans fairly easily as well...
basically, IMO Squat Chassis Templates mean your opponent needs
Titan-hunting weapons (+ to damage table rolls) instead of just
heavy-hunting weapons (like Quake Cannon).

The alternative is to just give the SHV "hit points", say, or just
ignore the first failed save. This means the SHVs are slightly more
survivable, but not too much so, and I don't usually only fail one save
when my Colossi die. (Recent losses include a pounding by a Pulsar --
12 hits in two turns -- and a pair of Doms.)

> >5) Reworking movement. Some have commented that having all the units
> >of one side move is too unbalanced. There have been talks of
> >alternating detachment movement, like firing is alternated. Perhaps
> >more than one detachment could be moved at a time.
> Sounds interesting, but it might make the movement phase take uneccesarily
> long. When you mentioned movement, I was hoping you would say something
> about the turning ratios for vehichles, as they've always bothered me.
> Vehichles with treads ought to be able to drive backwards, too.

Hooray for house rules. ^_^ My Colossi usually do a bit of a dance in
this respect, moving forward on turn 1 (off the front line, usually)
sitting still on turn 2, and then moving backward 5 cm each turn
thereafter. (Drive backwards at half normal rate.)

                    Aaron Teske
Received on Wed Jan 15 1997 - 16:40:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:00 UTC