Re: [Epic] 'Nids 'Nids 'Nids

From: Chris White <chris_at_...>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 09:12:56 -0700

At 09:01 AM 10/2/97 -0400, you wrote:
>J. Michael Looney wrote:
>>
>> Scott Shupe wrote:
>>
>> > > Also, well, on my tables 110 cm will not make it to the other side in
>> > > one turn. (4' x 8', played the "long way")
>> >
>> > You don't feel that playing the long way alters
>> > the balance of the game? I know it would for SM/TL.
>>
>> I have always played wargames the long way.
>>
>> If which way you have the table set up effects the balance of the game,
well,
>> there is a problem with the game rules.
>
> There's generally lots of problems with GW game rules...
>
> What I was thinking of specifically was something like
>IG or squats vs a close combat army in SM/TL. Playing the
>'normal' way means the close combat units have to cross 80cm to
>reach the opponent's backfield, getting shot at the whole time.
>Playing the long way down the board, those same troops have to
>cross 200cm (assuming 20cm deployment zones). Considering that
>IG & squats both have weapons that can reach 150-200cm, the
>close combat guys are going to be subjected to much more fire
>on the way in, and game balance would (probably) be shifted
>towards whoever had the longest ranged guns.
>
> I suppose this wouldn't be much of a problem with e40k
>since they've cut the weapon ranges to such small values. But
>it must be hard to get titans across the table when facing
>deathstrikes...
>
>Scott
>shupes_at_...
>
>
        Those are interesting tactical problems, though, and they are ones which
would be faced by real commanders. You would need to make sure there was
plenty of terrain for cover, or deploy in rapid assault vehicles.
        Maybe a detachment of Skimmer-types to harry the flanks and disrupt enemy
lines, mechanized infantry, fliers, etc.

        I think the bigger the table, the less you can play WYSIWYG.


Nickles
Received on Thu Oct 02 1997 - 16:12:56 UTC