Aaron P Teske wrote:
> Excerpts from Epic: 15-Sep-97 Re: [Epic] Couple Questions by E.
> Earnshaw-Whyte_at_planet
> [snip his general problems with SM2]
>
> > 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.
DSII is Dirtside 2, (which J. Micheal Looney mentioned once) I take it? Any good?
Maybe in the Grim Darkness of the Far Future (where there is Only War), tanks have
simply ceased to be useful units, given the number of weapons that can take 'em
out, but if that was the case, why would folks still use 'em?
The squat SHV's seemed to be able to deal with infantry just fine...most of 'em
couldn't penetrate their void shields, and close assault was, um, very brave, but
seldom effective. It _did_ divert firepower away from other targets, I guess...
The squat battlecannons could certainly 'pop' tanks consistently; the problem
(IMHO) was that this ability was so common on the battlefield that only 1 and 2+
saves really made much noticeable difference to a unit's survivability. I played
against squats quite a lot, and any tanks I took were basically so much expensive
scrap metal. The bike thing was really more of a problem; but my point is that,
because of the large number of weapons with save modifiers of -2, -3, or greater,
tanks really were not much harder to kill than infantry; in many cases, if there
was cover available, they were much _easier_ targets.
<snip>
> > 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.
Artillery was fine as long as it could fire directly; but my opponents and I didn't
make a practice of setting up hills on the edges of the boards, so most straight
'artillery' (not Titan weapons) would be firing indirectly over our troops most of
the time ... and we noticed that the artillery rarely did much damage. If we had
mostly used the 5+ save for buildings rather than the 3+, I suppose this might have
been different. The Goliath Megacannon anecdote pretty well sums up the effects of
artillery in our games...
>
>
> > 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.
>
I don't know about shield firing; we much prefer driving 60cm in a curvy path
through enemy lines, pushing aside Titans, tanks, SHV's, infantry... perfectly
legal as far as I know, but cheddar through and through...
I only saw the bugs get beat fair and square once, and it was in a 4,000 pt game
where the opposition took an Imperator titan - because of the vp rules, the 'Nids
_could not win_ unless they brought down the Imperator, which they utterly failed
to do.
>
>
>
> 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....)
I have no problems with the firepower of Predators, I just have a problem with
their having a CAF of 0, an armor of 3+, and costing 60 points each (at least).
They just die too easily, at 60 points a pop. If you're _very_ careful with them
and your opponent engages other targets with the inevitable bikes, you'll get the
value out of them; otherwise they will simply swell your opponents VP's.
<snip stuff on Stellae Cognitae>
> 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.
>
Cool, maybe I'll check it out (although a sane person might suggest I'm involved in
about 4 too many RPG campaigns at the moment, anyway...)
> >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.
It seems so wierd, though, because they were really into knights and we were seeing
tons of stuff about them right before they pulled SM/TL.
<snip>
> > I liked knights because they played the way I thought tanks should...
>
> Oh? How so?
>
Well, they were tough, fast, and survivable, basically; I don't really think tanks
should have shock lances or anything. Knights are units in about the same price
range as tanks, with the major weaknesses of tanks fixed. Not quite as much FP, but
who cares how big your guns are if you explode before you can use 'em...
<snip>
>>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.
>
Turbo-laser destructors too, I'll bet...
> > 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....)
>
Excellent... (accompanied by a sequential tapping of the fingertips together)
> > 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?
>
Sounds fine...
> 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.
>
Well, its hard to say for sure without playtesting it, but I don't think these
rules are really unbalanced. Sure the Warhounds can win firefights, but they've
probably sacrificed a turn or two of firing to do that... I think it probably evens
out. Warhounds always seem to win firefights anyway...
<whop--kerplunk>
> 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....
>
Yes, Titans definitely have much less to fear from bikes --"Out of my way, puny
insects!" Honestly though, I don't see the new Titan rules as less fun; it's really
cool to have a couple of the big suckers lumber into the middle of a swarm of enemy
troops and scatter the enemy to the four winds with an awesome display of firepower
superiority.
> Later,
>
> Aaron Teske
> Mithramuse+_at_...
YHAOS,
Eugene
Received on Wed Sep 17 1997 - 06:04:22 UTC