Re: [Epic] Couple Questions

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 06:10:55 +0200 (MET DST)

snip

>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)


Actually, I always thought that this WAS realistic (at least in a modern
warfare sense). It hasn't happened on land yet, but on the ocean
battleships are acknowleged to provide too much target to modern antiship
weapons and the trend is now toward smaller faster units. For all we know,
40K anti tank weapons are the size of a cigarette lighter and your best
(maybe your only) defense would be maneuverability...


>and weapons with unreasonably high save modifiers (Bio-Cannons, many
>squat Battlecannons).


Stuff all Squat battle cannons have a save mod greater than -2, and the ones
that do are mounted on the Squat superheavies (which seems pretty
appropriate to me...)


>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.


This hasn't been my experience. In only one game was initiative a deciding
factor - and that one was using the (silly) non take and hold objectives
from WD. Whoever won the first initiative roll would pick up 20 points
worth of rescues and ammo dumps and you would have to be pretty lucky to
come back from 20pts down in a 45pt game... Ordinarily, we use tactics like
contingency plans, supporting fire, reserves, and avoid over committing to
limit the importance of the initiative rolls...


>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).


I agree that most artillery is overpriced, but not the squat stuff! For
every game that went the way you describe, I bet there were a dozen where
the stumpies kicked butt with their way too effective arty...


>4)Broken units (in the CCG sense) -Wave Serpents, Weirdboy BT's, and half
the damn
>Tyranid army list...


Yeah, the tyranids are a problem, but we tend to play with a "rule of
cheese" which suggests that "you are being cheesy if you take more than
threesie". ie, in general, more than three of anything in an army is cheesy
and you are only admitting your tactical incompetance if you resort to
"cheese". Under these conditions, most army lists are pretty playable. (Of
course you actually have to plan and use tactics and stuff like that, but
hey - it is a wargame after all... :-)

Agro

[snicker-snack]
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC