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

From: Scott Shupe <shupes_at_...>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 18:17:19 -0400

J. Michael Looney wrote:
>
> > > BTW, I have problems with ALL games that use victory points.
> >
> > Of course, E40k uses VPs also.
>
> Important notice: Moral and Objectives are optional in E40K.
> VP are not optional in SM-2.

        You have a point there, although I could argue that
the difference is negligible - there are SM scenarios that
change the standard VP rules for the same effect.

        For example:

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

        This is based on a SM scenario of the same name,
where VPs were awarded to the breaker-outer only for exiting
non-broken detachments, and that player had something like
10 turns to do the exiting in.

> > > 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.
>
> 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.

        Please, this is GW we're talking about. Every game
they make requires buying WD issues (E40k: what effect do
BMs have on SHWs? well, you won't know until you read WD
212!). Maybe "requires" is too strong, but certainly it's
'recommended'. You can't judge a GW game merely by what's
in the box, because often what's in the box is not a complete
game until you add in supplements and WD articles (you can't
even play e40k until you come up with some kind of house rule
on the BM vs SHW question, a much larger deficiency than only
including one scenario in the box).

> No arguments about "is it or is it not optional rules or not"

        People take WD articles as real rules unless the
article in question specifically state otherwise, and
sometimes not even then (were the rules for the SM/TL
Ordinatus optional?). Heck, people even take CJ rules as
being 'official' or somehow better than other house rules
just because they're published in a GW mag.

> > > 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.
>
> 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.

        Point taken.

> > > Army Cards:

> > 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.

        Not that marine HQs are god-like super grunts, but
a handful of (free) independent units with a +4 CAF that
can't be directly targeted is certainly better than nothing.

Scott
shupes_at_...
Received on Mon Sep 29 1997 - 22:17:19 UTC