Re: [Epic] Couple Questions

From: Eugene Earnshaw-Whyte <eug_at_...>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 23:39:36 -0700

Mark A Shieh wrote:

> >Says me:
> > Hmm. Whatever you think of the WD article on Marine chapters, I
> > don't really think that 'redundant' is an appropriate summary of
> > it's special rules for Chapters.
>
> Maybe I've having a slight terminology problem. It seems
> highly inappropriate, then.

Fair enough, although I'm not sure I agree.

>
>
> > The thing that bugs me about redundant units is that either some
> > never get used, thus seeming pointless, or else they are virtually
> > indistinguishable on the battlefield, but use slightly different
> > rules, which is annoying.
> > The rules for Marine chapters make a real difference on the
> > battlefield,
>
> Right... So you're feel that two types of Tac Marines should
> *not* be indistinguishable on the battlefield? If this is what you
> mean, that's the point I'm having a lot of disagreement about. I feel
> that the Tanks have just as much individual personality as two types
> of Tac Marines. And while your Ork player might have felt that 75% of
> the tank types sucked, he's still probably using more than a couple.
> Are the two types of Tac Marines more different than the
> differences betweeen Howling Banshees, Striking Scorpions, Dire
> Avengers, and Fire Dragons? I don't feel that way. I'm having
> problems with GW consistency, and get the impression that you're not
> comprehending my point quite right.
>

Since I haven't really explained my position all that thouroughly, I should
probably try to do a bit better job of it. One undeniable feature of E40k is that
the minor differences between units have been largely glossed over. I approve of
this, mostly (although I do miss Madboyz). The reason I approve of it is fairly
simple. Say you've got a big Ork mob. The vehicles in it are 4 gobsmashas, 3
bonebreakas, 6 battlewagons, and a couple of gutrippas. You can a)give them 1 fp
each, and a 45 cm range, allowing you to calculate the effects of their fire in
about 15 seconds, or you can b)have different statistics for all of them, allowing
you to calculate the effects of their fire much more laboriously and slowly. The
effects of said firepower are, in either case, nearly identical. I obviously
prefer a). The reason the special Marine rules don't bother me is because they are
a macro-effect; that is, they apply equally to all of the units (pretty much), so
they don't make gameplay any more difficult to handle.

In terms of troop differentiation, it does seem as if GW is saying this: the
differences between fighting a gutrippa and a bonebreaka are relatively
negligible, but there is a noticable difference between fighting Space Wolves and
fighting Imperial Fists. GW is differentiating between _armies_, not units, with
the Marine special rules.

As an example, imagine if in the next WD, they came out with rules for individual
Ork Clans, and said something along the lines of: 'all Evil Suns vehicles gain +5
movement, and this costs, say, 2 points each'. Note how different this is than
saying 'spleenrippas move 5 cm slower than gobsmashas, but have +2 assault.' The
one change is a change in Army flavouring, and is easy to apply, the other is a
change in unit flavouring, and is (somewhat) annoying to apply. I agree with Army
flavourings, in principle (although I might disagree with specific rules) because
they add character to the armies; I dislike redundant similar units, because they
slow down play to no purpose.

It may well be argued that GW has gone to far in simplifying the Ork army list; I
for one would not have complained if there had been an extra type of tank or two.
I also would not have minded if they had differentiated between, say, CC aspects
like Banshees and firepower aspects like Dire Avengers. They didn't, though, and I
doubt if they will. I don't really see the Marine Chapter rules in the same way
however; they don't introduce new troop types, IMHO, they give rules for different
Armies. Imagine if in a few months they publish Craftworld specific rules; Aspect
Warriors still won't be much differentiated (which is good or bad depending on
your point of view), but Saim-Han will be treated slightly differently from
Biel-Tan. This would be cool wiv' me.

> > 'Redundant' thus seems the wrong term, to me at least.
>
> Maybe it is. I feel that a Tac Marine is a Tac Marine, if an
> Ork Tank is an Ork Tank. The two go hand in hand. Either they both
> get fleshed out with individual stats, or they don't. Maybe having
> separate stats for different Tac Marines isn't redundant, but it's
> inappropriate at best.
>
> Mark

  I understand your point of view; hopefully I've explained mine adequately.

Regards, Eugene
Received on Mon Sep 15 1997 - 06:39:36 UTC