Re: [Epic] Re:

From: Aaron P Teske <Mithramuse+_at_...>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 08:16:38 -0500 (EST)

Excerpts from Epic: 17-Jan-97 Re: [Epic] Re: by Brett Hollindale_at_powerup
> Yes, please...
> (Although I'm still stunned by the widespread agreement as to the lack of a
> void shield saving throw against the one shots. This whole conversation is
> pretty much moot as only a very brave player would field squats against
> imperial or chaos armies...)

Or a player with only one army?
(Like me, basically. It doesn't hurt in this discussion that the second
army I'm working up is a Titan Legion, so I've been looking at weapon
loadouts for quite a while now....)

> I have never seen a Reaver deployed on the back line before, but for the
> sake of argument we will assume that the Imperials do this.

I've sen it done if all the Titans have is 100cm weapons. Especially if
facing the Squats, 'cause that means it'll take some time for the
Overlords to reach you. (Of course, we usually play on a pool table,
which gives you an additional 5-10cm backfield, which makes things even
rougher on the Squats in this respect.)

>The Units are
> 100cm apart. The squats drive off to the side or even advance in a rearward
> direction to make the range a little over 100 cm and rain barrage death upon
> the helpless imperial idiots.

With one barrage? (Doomsday.) The missiles are 100cm range as well.
And moving backward is illegal in the main rules, and only gets you 5cm
(half move) in our house rules, so you don't go too far.

>When the Reavers decide to advance, the
> squats close the extra 10 cm and crush them with their range 75 weapons (and
> since the imperials cannot advance and then first fire, I would expect two
> titans to bite the biscuit before they get a shot off!)

Um. The Reavers advance the needed 5 cm to close the distance the
Squats moved back, the Squats then charge forward and fire... and fall
short by 15cm.

> IF the forces start at a more reasonable separation of 80 cm, AND there is
> no cover to break line of sight to one or more of the titans (which will
> probably have FF orders) things will be a little different.

No kidding. Then the Squats are in a considerably better position;
their guns are effective. (This is actually where I'd start
re-equipping the Reavers, with more Gatling Blasters than Volcano Cannon
to strip void shields. 1 Gatling Blaster, 1 Volcano Cannon, and a Fire
Control Tower (or a second Gatling Blaster) should do the trick fairly

> The squats advance to within 75 cm and open up with a single one shot
> missile, their 8d6 range 75 hit on a 4+ and finally their save at -3 barrage
> weapon.
> Of course the Iron Eagles advance to somewhere that they can get side shots
> on the reavers...

Hmm. You got me there; I totally forgot about the 'copters. Well,
that's one additional void shield dropped a turn, on average.

> (If we ignore the presence of support units, the gyrocopters can advance the
> full 80cm and be behind the titans fire arcs, or if we include support units
> in the equation, a detachment of 3 iron eagles charges closer to the enemy
> than the COMMAND iron eagles from the Collosi...)

WRONG. Neither the Gyrocopter nor the Colossus is a command unit. They
just move like command units, there is *no* restriction as to
targetting. This is why you need to paint up your command 'copters
similar to the rest of your 'copters, and have units of four flitting
around the field....

> Initiative plays a decisive roll as will dice karma.

Always true; that's my main problem with any kind of comparison like
what I did. But, like I said, I was bored.

>Two reavers packing
> optimum weapon packs for squat busting (2x Gattling blasters or 2x
> Turbolaser and a Volcan or Quake cannon) will only score about 7.5 hits, and
> if the final Volcano/Quake cannon misses, or if the squats win initiative,
> (or if the Reavers pack 3 of the 100cm weapons) it looks pretty sad for the
> reavers.
> Obviously, the squats pack enough fire power to down the Reavers shields,
> and if the -3 barrage doesn't do a hit (I would target the titan's largest
> weapon, but there is a good argument for the "groin" leg location) the
> gyrocopter popping the reactor from the side is reasonably likely to finish
> the poor thing.

Speaking of dice Karma, my 'copter fire is some of the worst shooting my
Squats pull. One time I fired a whole squad at a lone troll (for lack
of other targets) and got only one hit. Then it made its save. <sigh>

> If the squats win initiative they could reasonably expect to kill (or remove
> the biggest weaon from) two titans before the third titan may or may not
> kill one SHV. On turn 2 it is all over for the remaining titan.
> If the Titans win initiative, they will probable still lose 1 titan while
> killing 1 SHV and on turn 2 they will probably lose another before maybe
> killing the other SHV. If the (lone) titan fails to kill the SHV in turn 2,
> the titan dies in turn 3.

Again, this is all assuming everyone starts on the front line; I stated
that both players knew what was happening thus the "optimal" placement
of the Reavers on the back. (Though I've seen it done in normal games,
too -- it also reduces your blind spot, making it harder for, say, bikes
to sneak up the side.) I certainly won't disagree with you here; *when
they're in range*, Squat Colossi have among the top concentrations of
firepower for the points. (Others include the Overlord and the
Tarantula.) But this is the whole idea behind the squats; they sit back
and shoot.

> (And the gyro copters have a chance of killing the titan in turn 3 anyway.)

True; like I said, I forgot about the 'copters. I don't think it would
be worth it for the Reavers to kill the things, unless the Colossi have
some problems with terrain (ie, water) or the like. But any terrain is
likely to block LOS, which is a definite plus for the Colossi; they can
fire the Doomsday Cannon all day, even without the 'copter. (Well, OK,
they can't, since they need a spotter. <sigh>)

                        Aaron Teske
                        Squat Leader, Den'Len Fetch
Received on Fri Jan 17 1997 - 13:16:38 UTC

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