Re: [Epic] Net Epic Gudelines

From: Cameron Bentsen <stu7i95_at_...>
Date: 29 Jan 1997 11:04 EST

In message "[Epic] Net Epic Gudelines", you write:

> > From: "Seth Ben-Ezra" <Azathoth_at_...>
> >
> > > FIRST TOPIC
> > > 1-Army construction, present system(company cards,etc.) or a individual
> > > model points system(each figure assigned a point value), WHAT STAYS OR
> > > GOES!
>
> Considering we haven't seen the new system yet, and
> have only heard vague rumors about it, this question is hard
> to answer. I like the cards, and I think that I will probably
> prefer the cards to the new system, but I really have no way
> of knowing until I see Epic 40k for myself.
>
> As far as the cards go, I think that pricing everything
> in multiples of 50pts is a problem, and is part of the reason
> some units are over/underpriced. 40k involves massive number
> crunching, so why can't Epic players handle a point system in
> multiples of 25? (or even 5?)

I'd have to throw in my 2 cents at this point (even though I'm not really
that interested in net epic) and agree with Scott here. I've always found
it to be a annoying nuisance that pricing is always measured in 50-pt.
increments and that VPs are always rounded up. I think we can handle smaller
increments (25 pts. is small enough for now) and that VPs should be directly
tied to points cost, i.e. 1 VP per 25 points (except for Squats, of course).
Objectives would therefore be worth 20 points each, rather than 5.

>
> > Keep the current system. While we may want to make more individual
> > characters, like Phoenix Lords or Bjorn the Fell-Handed, the current
> > system is great. It limits cheese by requiring purchase of basic
> > troops (in the form of a company) before more specialized units (with a
> > higher cheese factor) can be added. Also, it forces the player to
> > follow the "historical" structure of the army. This is one of the
> > abuses that bothers me about WH40K. I will confess; both in 40K and in
> > EPIC, I am a Space Wolf player. (As if you couldn't figure that out
> > from my nom de guerre. :) ) However, an army composed completely of
> > Terminators, which can be done in 40K, is unrealistic. The army card
> > system puts a stop to such silliness.
>
> Well, actually I would think the scarcity of terminator
> stands is what puts a stop to such things. THere's nothing in
> the rules that keeps you from having an army composed entirely
> of terminator companies, although I don't know why you'd want
> such a thing.
>
> Epic requires you to buy companies, 40k has a minimum
> number of points you must spend on squads. I think the cheese
> problem with 40k is that you can choose what to arm your guys
> with, especially your characters who for the most part can't
> be targetted indiscriminately. While in Epic the only models
> with variable armament are big titans with bullseyes practically
> painted on them (plus you can't give your titans neat wargear
> like combat drugs, displacer fields, etc).
>
> The stand-by-stand method might not be too bad, depending
> on how it's handled. I would think that (frex) all devastators
> would be the same, armed with "hvy weapons" and not: dev with
> lascannon, xx pts, dev with heavy bolter xx pts, etc. A tech
> marine would be a tech marine, period, with no options to buy
> him a jump pack and graviton gun. I guess I imagine that it
> will be exactly like now, except that armies will be more
> configurable. Don't want your marines to have Rhinos? No
> problem! Just build units without! And so on.
>
> But we'll have to wait and see, hmmm?
>
> Scott
> shupes_at_...
>

It could be OK, but it could also be the case that the stand-by-stand gives
more methods of number-crunching your way to victory (gee... all my detachments
give up exactly 1.45 VP each, rounded down to 1... and they all have 3 models,
so you have to kill 2 of them to get your VP...)

I guess the concern the majority of us share is, we know how much cheese there
currently is in Epic, and we know that it's relatively small compared to 40K.
The changes that are being made could potentially keep the cheese factor low,
but we aren't optimistic. Therefore we'd rather base net epic on something we
know is relatively cheese-free rather than on something we don't know about
but suspect would be more cheesy.

Someone else mentioned limiting the number of detachements/companies of any
single type you can buy. I think that's a good idea, as well, to help keep
the cheese even lower.

Cameron Bentsen, Ottawa.
Received on Wed Jan 29 1997 - 16:04:00 UTC