Excerpts from Epic: 15-Sep-97 Re: [Epic] Couple Questions by E.
Earnshaw-Whyte_at_planet
[snip his general problems with SM2]
> 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).
Well, almost all Battlecannon have the same statline; that's something I
*really* wish GW had held to frrom first edition, actually, since then
you just had to remember what type of weapon your units had, and not
what each did. And the whole idea behind the Squats was mobile fortress
Ogre-like SHVs, so they *should* pop tanks with impunity, IMO. What
they couldn't deal with quite as well was infantry, though this doesn't
come out so well in either SM2 or E40k. Actually, that's why I'm slowly
moving towards DSII, it's partially a question of whether I'll make the
switch before or after leaving CMU.
As for bikes vs. tanks, yeah, it was a bit silly. But then, from what
I've seen of WH40K, there were often guys riding bikes with power
swords/axes/whatever, or hefty grenades. Of course, that doesn't mean
that ordinary troopers should've been so powerful....
> 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.
Actually, I've usually seen it more as being important on the first
turn, or (more likely) the second since that's when all the massive
charges occurred. By the third or fourth turn it was usually more of a
mopping-up operation. But yes, I do like E40K's handling of initiative
somewhat better, though alternating detachments would be interesting to
work with.
> 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).
Yes, but is that the norm? I've had games where my rad bombs (12 cm
template, 3+ to hit) covered eight units and I only hit one (!), and
then a game where an Overlord hit with all 10 (5+) shots in one turn.
You've got to average those occurances... usually I find the arty to be
pretty good.
> 4)Broken units (in the CCG sense) -Wave Serpents, Weirdboy BT's, and half the
> damn Tyranid army list...
Wave Serpents I thought were pretty well clarified towards the end,
though if you mean their power level yes, they could be annoying.
Fortuantely, we talked our Eldar player out of abusing the shield
firing... and the WS became a *very* nice transport. WBBTs are also a
bit rough, yeah, but I've seen probably half of the ones fielded go
blooey on the second turn. The bugs are aonther question, but I'm still
of the opinion that they weren't areound long enough for any solid
tactics to get worked up against them, so people still consider then
overly powerful.
> > 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'.
I still don't see what's wrong with Predators; from what I recall of the
stat line, they're one of the most effective tanks out there... 3 75 cm
shots. Certainly better than the Rusted Lemons. (Which really did need
fixing....)
> > 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 actually a home-brew system that's only around on the web, but
there have been people using the system who aren't at CMU. See
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~mc7f/SC/stellae.html if you have some
spare time. Mike's a brilliant, if somewhat insane, GM and the
background he's worked up is incredible.
>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.
Yeah. I really don't see why GW didn't publish rules for 'em in WD,
they *can't* be 'holding out for a Codex' like they claim they're doing
with the Squats. I find it much more likely GW is canning them, which
means the Eldar Knights/Exodites are going bye-bye as well, which is,
all in all, a d*mn shame.
Hmm, I suppose you could get Codex: Knights and/or Codex: Exodites for
WH40K....
> I liked knights because they played the way I thought tanks should...
Oh? How so?
> > >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.
Well, yeah, and I will admit I made a lot more use of VMBs, Melta-Cannon
and Gatling Blasters than, say, Laser Blasters, but I think I covered
nearly all the weaponry.
> Is any of your Army stuff on the 'net? It sounds cool...
Well, with your comment and Sauron's request to see my stuff, I think
it's getting dusted off, polished up a little, and put onto the web.
(For one thing, I should probably explain where some of the names came
from....)
> 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.
Well, yes, but I really liked the variety available, and being able to
class Titans into long-range fire support vs. in-your-face,
if-you-can-read-this-you're-toast weapons platforms. ^_^ In E40K, you
can't do that; for one thing, the in-your-face ranges are a bit too
short, and for another the weapons variety is gone. I've got some notes
on alternate weapons, especially some for Warhounds, but they strat
getting rather nasty... take the alternate HWBs I was thinking of. 8 FP
at 45 cm is the standard (6 FP for Warhounds) so, up the FP while
reducing the range to imitate the Laser Blaster and Vulcan Mega-Bolter,
right?
8 (6) FP at 45 cm
12 (9) FP at 30 cm
16(12) FP at 15 cm
Unfortunately, I think this will *severely* unbalance the game,
especially for Warhounds who can easily get into FireFight range...
they'd have 24 FP!!! Anyway, I'll probably still look at it, maybe get
'em on the web, but then there are these classes things that keep coming
up.
> 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.)
[snip how infantry can't really hurt Titans]
And I guess I'm really being picky here, but that just takes all the fun
out of it. ^_^;; I suppose I'll still have to try an all-Titan force at
some time, and given warning I'm sure the response will be nasty, but
the worries in E40K are not the same worries as in SM2... like, say,
getting hit with bikes. (Just to bring things full circle.... ^_^ )
Basically, it means several of my defensive Titans aren't worth as much.
But I guess I'll have to try....
[snicker-snack the rest....]
Later,
Aaron Teske
Mithramuse+_at_...
Received on Tue Sep 16 1997 - 14:55:43 UTC