Re: [Epic] Couple Questions

From: Eugene Earnshaw-Whyte <eug_at_...>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:25:33 -0700

Aaron P Teske wrote:

> Excerpts from Epic: 14-Sep-97 Re: [Epic] Couple Questions by E.
> Earnshaw-Whyte_at_planet
> [Snippage of various stuff that has been thoughroughly discussed]
> >There were, on
> > the other hand, some quite real difficulties with the SM/TL rules core;
> these > were mostly matters of realism, and
> preference, but were pretty major ones. I > won't
> launch into my 'problems with SM/TL' spiel,which I had pretty well
> > memorized 3 years ago (when I tried to come up with new house rules for CC
> to > give Tanks a fighting chance against bikes),
> because I don't think
> > anyone_really_ wants to hear it...
>
> I will admit to curiosity, since I don't recall hearing it; I certainly
> don't remember you being on the ML until recently. You do have a point
> about the bikes, though, and GW's drive-by shootings have been something
> I've had trouble seeing, but it was not, IMO, a rules problem as I'd
> define it. (Ie, ambiguity or outright conflict. It might not have made
> much *sense*, but it was quite clear.)

There are a few different kinds of rules problems; as far as I'm concerned
ambiguities and inclarities are the easiest kind to fix. They are also the first
kind to be noticed, and GW has a pretty consistent record (which they are trying to
improve) of putting out ambiguous rules. However, it is also, IMHO, a rules problem
if if gameplay doesn't correspond with background/realism. No-one wants to play a
set of rules for WW2 miniatures where tanks can be easily destroyed by rifle fire.
Most of my difficulties with SM/TL -still my second or third favorite miniatures
game - were rules problems of this kind. As long as no alternative presented
itself, I was willing to live with my annoyances, but because essentially all of
them were fixed by E40k, I found the new system to be an improvement.

A few of my stronger problems with rules realism (feel free to skip this if you
don't want to hear about it) were:

1) Tanks being too vulnerable to destruction, particularly from bikes (which seems
unreasonable) and weapons with unreasonably high save modifiers (Bio-Cannons, many
squat Battlecannons).
2)The incredible importance of the initiative roll; too many games came down to:
well, if I'd won the initiative on the last turn, I would have won. But I didn't,
so he did.
3)The general ineffectiveness of most artillery (I still remember one game where a
company of Goliath Mega-Cannons succeeded in killing two squads of tactical
infantry throughout the course of the game - and the Goliaths fired every turn).
4)Broken units (in the CCG sense) -Wave Serpents, Weirdboy BT's, and half the damn
Tyranid army list...

> [snicker-snack]
> > Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the Tank thing; Vindicators
> > were almost worthwhile, but don't even talk to me about Predators, or even
> > LR's. Give me HW infantry every time...
>
> Predators? I always thought... um, well, we disagree, basically. ^_^
> (I do see your point, but then I also worry about background and
> appropriateness when assembling armies....)

Oh, for sure; it's just that I don't think players who try to put together
appropriate armies should be penalised for it. Appropriate armies should 'work'.

My viewpoint has perhaps been somewhat skewed by the wargaming background my
friends and I share; many of my opponents are not very familiar with the GW
universe, and I try not to spend too much time bugging them about what 'real' Epic
armies should be like.

> <snip>
>
> They pulled Squats and Knights, which are my first two armies, though I
> can't say I ever finished painting enough Knights. However, I did have
> some nice heraldry for each of the detachments, squad leaders, the
> Baron, etc. that a friend drew up for me, as well as a fairly detailed
> paint scheme laid down that was based off a RPG I play in. (Stellae
> Cognitae, if you've ever heard of it. I understand it's gotten some
> recognition, anyway. There's a link off my home page.)

Nope; I have played a _lot_ of RPG's but that one doesn't ring a bell. Could have
something to do with my Canadian residence. It's cool that you were doing a knight
army; I was considering doing one myself. It was very silly to leave them out of
E40k; hopefully we will see some official recognition of the things before too
long.

I liked knights because they played the way I thought tanks should...

> >Which is the detailless one (I would have guessed
> > Orks, but I think you said you didn't play them).
>
> My Titan Legion. Again, I'm a victim of my own penchant for planning
> and detail; I have a fairly sizable file containing the weapons
> loadouts, Titan names, *Princeps* names, and paint schemes for three
> Imperators, a dozen Warlords, nine Reavers, and eight Warhounds. I'd
> done some (limited) tactical studies on how to distribute the Titans to
> support each other with the intent of making a *true* Titan legion, one
> that did not require any infnatry support. GW then went and stripped
> everything out from underneath me. Given what I put into it and my use
> of a large variety of the weapons, I'm more than a little underwhelmed
> at what Titans are now. The range differential (and the corresponding
> ease with which infantry can close assualt a Titan) doesn't help either.

Wow... I'm impressed. I have to say, though, that about half the weapons in SM/TL
seemed underpowered... yes, I realize that one shouldn't base one's choices purely
on game advantages, but I always sort of figured that after 20,000 yrs. of war the
Princeps would have figured out which weapons did the job and which were so much
flashy junk.

Is any of your Army stuff on the 'net? It sounds cool...

I honestly think that your army would work great in E40k - I find that Titans
working in groups are very difficult to stop. You might be surprised how much
variety can be achieved using the available Titan weapons, and a Gatling blaster
doesn't have to be treated differently from a Lasblaster (if that's what it was
called) for it to be fun that one Titan has the one and one the other.

I honestly wouldn't worry about infantry close assaulting your titans... what
happens, worst case scenario, is that your titans take a few hits and then you
blast away the enemy with a firefight (I suppose you could lose the firefight too,
but that would be damn unlucky, and it wouldn't hurt you much, either.) The thing
is, only so many infantry stands can attack you - depending on how big your titan
is- and your assault factor is so high they have to be really special to beat you.
For example, a Warlord Titan can be attacked by up to six infantry stands; it's
assault factor is 30. That means, to even beat it's assault factor (which doesn't
guarantee winning, by a long shot), the infantry would have to average an assault
factor of better than 5... as far as I know only Genestealers and Space Marine
Command units can do that...oh, and Harlequin units that include Shadow Seers and
such.

Of course, extra units in support would help them some, but you would have extra
Titans in support, which is better. I actually find that War Engines dominate the
assault phase, particularily in groups --it's HW infantry on overwatch in cover
they must fear, and the right weapons can see _those_ fellows off, too.

>
>
> Actually, if you want a 'realism' point (like bikes in SM2), that's one
> for ya, IMO. It is *far* too easy to close with the enemy, without
> getting shot at.
>

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree. Unless you are _really_ fast, the enemy gets a chance to
blast on you, and that almost always hurts a lot. The only real exceptions are
bikes and such, and transported jump-pack troops (particularily swooping hawks). I
personally suspect that troops like these would probably only take light fire on
the way in anyway...

I actually find that it is much more difficult to engage in CC without taking fire
than it was in SM/TL. In SM/TL, it was not uncommon for the only fire for charging
troops to take being last second shots from opponents on FF, or none at all if they
had 'bounced' moving opponents. Additionally, some of the fastest units (bikes)
were among the best at CC. My first major revelation about the E40k changes was
when a screaming, head on assault by berserk Chaos Marines was stopped dead in its
tracks by superior firepower, before it could close with the enemy. That would
_not_ have happened in SM/TL.
>>Most of the 5th edition army books aren't

> > being changed at all - the High Elves are the notable exception, because
> > there was widespread agreement that they were at an unfair disadvantage.
>
> Just to point out, I thought that the magic rules were being overhauled
> (though again, agreement was they needed it) with a corresponding
> overhaul of Chaos, and IIRC the Empire army book is in for overhaul as
> well. Yes, it's true that the High Elves needed a bit of a push, but
> again it's the power creep -- more powerful releases to sell more
> (newerr, more expensive) minis. Something to ponder: are the game
> designers including this power creep of their own volition, or is it
> something they are being told to do/forced to do? I prefer to think the
> latter, but that doesn't speak well of GW as a whole... not that much
> does. :P
>

A tough question to answer... People are pretty good at deluding themselves though,
the Game Designers could well not be consciously doing it... They just know that
the new race has to be 'cool', otherwise no-one will play it.

> Aaron Teske
> Mithramuse+_at_...

  Regards, Eugene
Received on Mon Sep 15 1997 - 23:25:33 UTC