Excerpts from Epic: 16-Sep-97 Re: [Epic] Couple Questions by E.
Earnshaw-Whyte_at_planet
> >[constant effects of weaponry snipped, and effectiveness vs. vehicles &
> >infantry]
> >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?
I think so, yes, though I've actually yet to play a game. <wince> But I
do like the design system, though trying to fit in all the guns GW puts
on doesn't always work, and the mechanics seem simple enough.
Basically, I want an experienced player to run me through once or twice,
'cause while GZG tried for a table-less rules book, it really could use
more. I might work up summary sheets, but... not now.
> 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?
Um, they're fairly mobile maybe?
> 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,
Only 16 bolters on the Colossus! ^_-
>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.
Of course, then there was the time I popped an entire company of
Shadowswords(?) in four hits... Bayani just did *not* have good luck on
those rolls. (Though the Baneblades across town absorbed a pretty good
amount of damage, IIRC.)
>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.
Yeah. That's one thing I *really* like about Dirtside 2, some weapons
are very effective against infantry but don't scratch tanks, others are
the opposite, and some are moderately effective against both. (And then
there are the direct fire fusion guns, which are *very* effective
against both, but they're short ranged and very expensive.)
[snip]
> 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.
Hmm, interesting. Though I will admit, my scatter dice liked me in a
good way; I certainly got lucky quite often with my Termites, and I got
very effective use out of them on some occations, and was let down only
a couple times.
>If we had mostly used the 5+ save for buildings rather than the
> 3+, I suppose this might have been different.
I thought the standard building save was 4+? (Whatever, really....)
[snip -- Wave Serpents]
> 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...
Oh, yeah, I think we interpreted some of the changes in TL to mean that
Wave Serpents couldn't actually shove aside anything larger than itself.
It could still shove aside infantry, and did, but that tended to get it
shot at the end of the turn.
> 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.
Whoops. Yeah, that could be a problem. But I really can't see why they
couldn't do it... it would take a bit more tactics than one normally
sees out of the Tyranids (regroup your infantry and come at the thing
all at once to board the bastions), but I think it's certainyl possible.
[snip]
> 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.
All the tanks tended to be that fragile, though, IMO....
[Stellae Cognitae]
> 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...)
^_^ I know the feeling, though I don't think I've ever been in *four*
campaigns....
[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...
Not too many, actually. Though as you may see, one Reaver group had
them as their arm mounts, with some of the larger single-shot guns as
their carapace mounts....
> > > Is any of your Army stuff on the 'net? It sounds cool...
[snip "RSN"]
> Excellent... (accompanied by a sequential tapping of the fingertips together)
<grin> Patience, my friend, patience. ^_^
Though, in case anyone missed it, see
"
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~at2u/shawk.html" for a basic list of my
Titan Legion. (You can never plug too much... well, maybe. ^_- )
[Alternate Titan weapons -- shorter, harder hitting HWBs]
> 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...
Hmm, true, I do recall hearing that elsewhere. Especially if you keep
'em in pairs, since then they support each other....
> <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.
<grin> OK, it sure sounds good, but it's a very different threat from
SM2. In SM2, it was the fast and/or survivable CC troops you had to
worry about; now, it sounds like it's anti-tank shots and death rays.
While the latter may be more accurate, tinkering with the guns is not
quite as effective, or as much fun....
> YHAOS,
YHAOS?
Later,
Aaron Teske
Mithramuse+_at_...
Received on Wed Sep 17 1997 - 06:02:35 UTC