Re: [Epic] 'Nids 'Nids 'Nids

From: Scott Shupe <shupes_at_...>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 13:43:01 -0400

Chris White wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> Those are interesting tactical problems, though, and they are ones which
> would be faced by real commanders.

        Real commanders aren't bothered by a lack of 'game
balance.' Real commanders wouldn't generally try to attack
tanks, artillery, and infantry carrying anti-tank weaponry
with assault troops armed with swords and clubs. However,
you get all of that in GW games...

> You would need to make sure there was
> plenty of terrain for cover, or deploy in rapid assault vehicles.

        Most of the close combat armies also suffer from a
lack of rapid assault vehicles. In SM/TL, if you could stick
demons, beastmen, minotaurs, and trolls in thawks then you'd
be in good shape - too bad you can't.

Scott
shupes_at_...
Received on Thu Oct 02 1997 - 17:43:01 UTC