Re: Support Weapons (was Re: [Epic] Squat 40K List)

From: Aaron P Teske <Mithramuse+_at_...>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:01:07 -0500 (EST)

Excerpts from Epic: 10-Nov-97 RE: Support Weapons (was Re.. by Chris
Pinson_at_...
> Without trying to sound tetchy, I think you may be missing the point. All
> four support weapons fill a similar role within an army, furthermore they
> have a similar effect. Not Identical but similar. In E40K the aim was to
> abstract above the things which are similar and concentrate on the
> differences. I am the first to admit that the final result of this was a
> bit of a mishmash (Consider the Ork battlewagon debate) but I think the
> principle is sound.

The principle is sound, yes, but the trouble is that the weapons
*aren't* that similar. Consider, for example, the difference between
the arty pieces (mole mortar & thudd gun) and the direct fire ones
(tarantula, rapier). GW did correct this in CJ, but they did
oversimplify them into an anti-tank shot. And even within the arty/non-
breakdown, there are differences... not much between the rapier &
tarantula (though they're supposed to be anti-infantry & anti-tank,
respectively, IIRC) but the range difference between mole mortars &
thudd guns is too great -- not to mention, too tactically important --
to ignore.

This is, BTW, my main gripe with GW's simplification of Titan weaponry.
And GW's arguement that the commander wouldn't care (except in general)
wouldn't care what the Titans were armed with *really* doesn't hold
water. (Argueably) your most powerful units, and you don't care?
<Harumph!>

Later,

                    Aaron Teske
                    Mithramuse+_at_...
Received on Mon Nov 10 1997 - 05:01:07 UTC