Re: [Epic] Things on tap, feedback wanted and some random rants

From: Scott Shupe <shupes_at_...>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 15:41:34 -0400

Chris White wrote:
>
> >> BTW, I have problems with ALL games that use victory points.
> >
> > Of course, E40k uses VPs also. I guess the
> >important difference though is that E40k VPs (ie morale)
> >take into account how much of a pounding your army has
> >suffered (to a certain extent, anyway, since how much
> >morale you lose each turn thanks to BMs is governed by
> >how well you roll that D6).
>
> Morale is a sort of anti-victory point. By that I mean that you are aiming
> to reduce what the enemy starts out with while guarding your own.

        You're aiming for that in any kind of wargame.
In SM I'm aiming to break enemy units while keeping my
own units from breaking.

> To my way
> of thinking this is more flexible than a VP system, because you don't
> really need to use any kind of objective at all, other than just wading
> into the enemy.

        Explain how this is different from SM/TL, where
you don't really need to use objectives, and can still
gather enough VPs to win by just attacking the enemy.

        In fact, I've known a few players who preferred
to play SM/TL without objectives (not for any aesthetic
reason, mind you, they simply didn't want the objectives
getting in the way of the carnage).

        The morale system is not inherently better than
SM's VP system (because, in fact, it's the same system
with a few minor changes). However, the morale system
is attatched to a "more realistic" (for lack of a better
word; or perhaps I should say "more wargame-like") set
of rules that give it the appearance of being better than
it is.

        In any case, I was simply pointing out that
E40k's morale is really no different than SM/TL's victory
points.

Scott
shupes_at_...
Received on Mon Sep 29 1997 - 19:41:34 UTC