Re: [Epic] Problems with the old system

From: Tony Christney <acc_at_...>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 19:54:40 -0800

>> From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
>>
>> > 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.
>
> The current method is faster, which I assume is the
>reason the designers used it. But the difference is quite
>large, although I guess this depends on what armies you play.
>I've talked to other gamers who pretty much believed that
>winning the game depended solely on winning initiative more
>than your opponent. I don't think it's that bad, but it's
>still a problem, IMHO. And personally I find the game a lot
>more enjoyable and tatically challenging with some sort of
>staggered movement system.
>
>Scott
>shupes_at_...

I would have to agree that staggered movement is a better system,
and is easily converted to Epic. The major obstacle seems to be
that issues of command become very blurred if a system such as DSII's
is used.

Moving each company alternately is very difficult for Chaos and
tyranids, which would be at an advantage due to the larger numbers of
cards for a given number of points.

I think that separating the movement phases into three phases might be
useful. The first units to move would be the units with charge orders.
They are more concerned with getting into position or closing with the
enemy than trying to be clever about it. Generally speaking, the only
advantage to charging across a battlefield is that it is quite difficult
to hit a moving target with anything that is not area effect. This is
usually negated in that you generally draw a lot more fire...

Next to move would be the units with advance orders. These units are taking
their time to observe enemy units, move through cover, avoid enemy firing
lines, etc.

Last to move would be the units that can move and FF. Typically these units
either have a very good view of the battlefield (Silver Towers, Overlords),
or they have extensive communications/sensor equipment (squat SHV's, Imperator).
This would give them the best information on where to move, hence they move
last.

During each phase, an alternating sequence would be used. How it was done would
depend on the tastes of the players involved, but I can't see why any system
couldn't be used.

Also, I want to add my .02 to the "squat vehicles are too easy to kill"
debate. Has anyone tried using a 2D6 save for these, like buildings and
the Imperator. IMO, the location templates don't really work well, as the
whole thing is pretty much armoured hull, so there isn't much to aim at.
I find that even Imperial building to be quite hard to destroy. Anyway,
I have only played squats once, the high point being when the thousand
sons' chaos champ accompanied by his brothers used telekinesis to send
a Collosus into a nearby forest, then vortexed a building full of
thunderers that was being a real pain in the ass.



Tony Christney
acc_at_...
Received on Sat Jan 18 1997 - 03:54:40 UTC