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

From: J. Michael Looney <mlooney_at_...>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 15:37:35 -0500

Scott Shupe wrote:

> J. Michael Looney wrote:
> >
> > Lets do this backwards:
> > The victory point system, and why I think it sucks rocks.
> >
> > 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).
>

Important notice: Moral and Objectives are optional in E40K. VP are not optional
in SM-2.Examples:
Gogard Last Stands: Objective: Kill a pair of bunkers (Orks). Protect said
Bunkers (SM.)

Rescue:
Get the assassin off the table by turn six (SM.). Stop this (Orks)

Sulfur River: Hold Bridges at the end of D3+3 turns. Note that this means the
short game is 4 turns.
Also note the "optional" version is to the death, i.e. kill the whole of the other
force, not just break them. This is ugly....

Break out: Attacker exits 1/2 of his force.

Fog of War. Totally random, but not, as a rule based on Moral Points.


> > I will make
> > exceptions to game where one side is going to lose the battle regardless,
> > where a "win" for the side that loses the battle is that they did not lose as
> > badly as they should have.
> >
> > I have real problems with game that claim to be a war game that don't play
> > like a war game. In Epic 2nd Ed you have, in the basic rules, exactly one
> > game you can play: A meeting engagement with a chunk of capture the flag
> > tossed in for good measure.
>
> Plus all the other 'games' you had in the handful
> of alternate scenarios published in WD. Players didn't
> (in my experience) limit themselves to just the basic
> "meeting engagement", and to ignore the existance of the
> other scenarios in your argument is silly.

In E40K you get a dozen (really more if you count all the permutations of Fog of
War) right out of the box, no need to buy WD XX to get the rules for some other type
of game. No arguments about "is it or is it not optional rules or not"

> > A set of war game rule should not restrict you to
> > only one type of battle. The fact that an Epic 2nd ed game, as played by
> > many, seldom went over turn 2, or maybe 3 is an indication that something is
> > wrong. In a micro armor game, if it is set up so that a point on the ground
> > must be held, it must be held for some period of time (i.e. hold the hill top
> > until turn 6). It makes zero military sense to just "grab" a chunk of
> > terrain. This is not baseball, where all you have to do is touch the bases in
> > passing. You need to grab and hold a spot of turf for a while for it to
> > matter.
>
> OK. But, you have the same 'baseball objectives'
> (Take & Hold) in E40k. I understand your arguments, but
> they also apply to E40k (to a lesser extent, but they still
> apply).

More or less, however all the effect is 1-3 moral a turn. That is the same as a
50-150 point detachment. Not to mention they MUST be in the enemy deployment zone
and only ONE player can get points for them.This is not the same as how the SM-2
objectives were laid out.



> > In every game of SM-1 and E40K I played the winner of the game was
> > the side that obviously won the battle, _OR_ managed to do his mission (i.e.
> > get x number of units across the board by turn y). This is not the case in
> > most of the games of Epic 2nd ed. And I will admit that I have been the
> > "winner" in games that if they went one more turn, I would have been wiped
> > out.
>
> I've seen this on occaision but not that often.
> It doesn't tend to happen when highly-maneuverable forces
> (ie eldar, or scads of thunderhawks) are not present.
>

Ok, most of my games were with Eldar or SM. with T-Hawks. If I want to play "A
Bridge to Far", I would be doing WW2 games. In this case lets not forget that the
British LOST those bridges but if it was a SM-2 game the "Brit" player won, in that
the did get to the bridges for a while.

> > Army Cards:
> > My problem with this is that I like to design "Kampgrups". I like to try
> > experiment with TO&E variations. I consider TO&E design to be one of, if not
> > the chief, places for real military genius to show. With the "army card"
> > system you really can't do that. For some armies, forcing a player to design
> > a force that is lock step always the same makes a slight amount of sense, but
> > for others it is REALLY silly. Orks and Chaos, for example.
>
> I've never played against Orks. However, as I
> undertand their army structure in SM, the detachments
> (mobs) in the army would always look different depending
> on what support cards you took and how many of them.
> But like I said I've never actually played against them
> so I'll shut up about them now.
>
> You have a point about Chaos, but OTOH most of
> the chaos army tended to be space marine stuff, where
> one would expect to see standardized detachments.
>
> I for one *liked* the IG army structure - you
> had to think about any support units you took for a
> company since the chain of command rules forced you to
> actually use them in support of that company. I just
> wished that the army card system imposed some kind of
> structure on some of the other armies (most noticably
> the SMs, who would have all their company HQs running
> around acting in a manner most un-HQ-like).
>

And in E40K they must act as HQ, not "God like Super Grunt" Killing every thing on
the board. This is a good thing.

> > While expecting
> > GW to do with Epic what was done with say Command Decision or Spearhead (where
> > the organization of most, if not all of the major units of WW2 were given in
> > game terms as part of the support for the rules) is, well, silly, I don't
> > feel that the army card system worked . While I have heard that the "Army
> > Card" system stopped 'Cheese", it didn't. If you don't think 2nd Ed had some
> > real cheese options, that were "card legal" , well, never mind.
>
> I've never seen army cards stop cheese. But the
> system limited how durable 'specialist' detachments could
> be - frex, no company card for eldar aspects, so they
> always had a very fragile break point of 2. It also
> limited your access to special cards, although that became
> meangingless with the introduction of titan companies.
>
> > The bottom line is that if you are going to be forced to take a "set" force
> > there should not be points attached to them, but if there are points, I want
> > to have a granularity of 1 platoon (or moral equal) in my force design
> > options. You have that in E40K and you had that in SM-1 (assuming you were
> > using the WD army lists) or you had "Historical" forces, which were not always
> > equal forces.
> >
> > Here endeth the first lesson
>
> What do you have planned for the 2nd lesson? =)
>

Well, the 1st lesson is either from the Old Testament or an Epistle readings, and
the 2nd if from one of the 4 Gospels, so I am not sure :-)


> Scott
> shupes_at_...
Received on Mon Sep 29 1997 - 20:37:35 UTC