Re: [Epic] Problems with the old system

From: Marc Feuerstein <tw44645_at_...>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 97 18:30:40 +0100

My experience says that the one that gains initiative has a big advantage
(especially in the first turn).When I play Eldar, If I win initiative on the
first turn, I will probably seize almost all objectives in the first turn.On
a 1.2 m table, the majority of the objective counters are between 50 cm and
70 from my table edge (thus between 30 cm and 50 cm from my front line),
what is good inside my skimmers range (jetbikes/vypers have a 35 cm mvmt
range) .
I recon that we play with a house rule where a skimmer may seize an
objective on a building.

Another problem with the current epic system is the fact that when we have
to wait that the opponent has to move its whole army, we have to wait
sometimes for much too long.

Some game systems (like Warzone, for example) propose that each player moves
a squad in alternation.It is better because we don't have to wait that long.


At 11:08 18/01/97 GMT, you wrote:
>At 11:38 AM 17/1/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>At 10:17 01/17/1997 -0500, you wrote:
>>>I've talked to other gamers who pretty much believed that
>>>winning the game depended solely on winning initiative more
>>>than your opponent.
>>I would be one of those gamers. The group I played in at TN Tech were
>>die-hard. We had about 6-8 regular players and at least that many who would
>>occasionally pick up a game. Almost all were college students, and the
>>competition was fierce. Rarely did anyone make tactical errors, and stupid
>>errors (not placing orders, etc.) just didn't happen at all. By the time I
>>left, most battles (unless someone was trying an experimental force) went to
>>whoever won 2 out of 3 initiative rolls. If someone won all three, there
>>was no hope. We even tried adding +1 to the loser's roll on the following
>>turn. Most of us refused to play Ragnar Cheesemane because of his
>>initiative bonus. It is not true so much at games I've played in elsewhere,
>>Love and laughs,
>This hasn't been my experience I'm afraid. As I said (much earlier), we
>USED to use a system where whover lost initiative moved one company and its
>support and then the other player moved one company and its support and so
>on until all units had moved.
>After extensive play testing we have gone back to the rules as written (one
>side moves their whole army, and then the other side moves their whole army)
>because it doesn't seem to make that much difference.
>We rigidly enforce the rule that you must close assault the nearest
>(unengaged) unit when charging (unless you are a flyer or a skimmer) and
>this allows us to deploy Close Asault troops to screen things we don't want
>close assaulted...
>Other than choosing who close assaults who (which you can pretty much do
>with sound tactics anyway) the initiative advantage isn't all that
>overwhelming unless you're facing the bloody squats and their bloody
>(Of course, since Warp missiles will now kill them stone motherless dead, I
>don't suppose they will be much of a problem in future :-)
Received on Sat Jan 18 1997 - 17:30:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:01 UTC