[Epic] re: Support Weapons (long)

From: Andy Meechan <a.meechan_at_...>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 97 12:45:28 gmt

     <disclaimer>
     
     As usual, the following is in no way a personal attack. I'd take such
     unpleasantries off-list.
     
     </disclaimer>




"along with the best set of combat rules to come from the GW staff
yet.(still room for improvement, though)"
     
     
     
      Where? Seriously, I'd like to know. Having played with the new
      system I love it to bits, but being so blinded by passion (sic) I may
      not see where things need improvement here. I'll qualify the rest of
      the responses here by first saying that I hated SM because of it's
      overcomplexities and the need to refere to charts every time you even
      looked at another vehicle (slight over-exaggeration). E40k 'does it'
      for me as I can play ANY army first time without constant reference
      to rule books, all you need to learn is how the army *feels*; and a
      lot of that is dealt with in the backgrounds!
      
      

"With e40k i see a lot more Min/Max Munchkin crap like a 20 stand Termie +
10 L.R. SM "army""




     You're playing with the wrong people. Again, I'm being serious here,
     have a word with your opponents and offer to play their army against
     them (yes, that common solution to the ailment). If you're refering
     to "...i see a lot more Min/Max" ON THE NET or IN THE STORE, then be
     thankful that your friends are clued up about balanced armies.
     Besides, there are ways and means around (virtually) every
     combination; some of the solutions involve using different
     scenarios...




"e40k got SO simple that Squats and Knights went "poof" and the Ork Clans
and vehicle list are but a pale shadow of what had made the Orks, "Orky"
and the loss of many Titan weapons and upgrades just sucks."



     For a kick-off the Knights were always borderline cases; only making
     official appearances every now and again. They don't really add to
     the game and I can definately live with them as sideline options.
     
     Squats are not included simply because they're not in Wh40k... yet.
     There's no point in sticking something in whenchanges are 'in the
     pipeline' (although that pipeline may be the length of an Alaskan Oil
     pipeline). Coherency between games is the name of the game these days
     (note: I did say 'these days', so don't quote examples from five years
     back. If there are differences these days, then feel free to mail and
     enlighten me).
     
     The Ork clans are easy enough to emulate, just build detachments based
     around the backgrounds given (and get a copy of CODEX: ORKS if you
     really care about them). Face it, it just wasn't worth making almost
     identical lists for each clan in the same way that Marine Chapters
     weren't included. As far as I'm concerned: Paint them black and pack
     the detachment full of Boyz, voila - Goffs. Bright colours and Shooty
     Boyz? Oh! must be Death Skulls (or whatever), ad. nauseum. Like I
     say, I really don't need five extra pages of lists in the Armies book;
     that's what the CJ is for :]
     
     I only ever used a few of the Titan weapons in SM/TL anyway so I don't
     really see the loss, but when it comes down to it I can say that I now
     choose Titan weapon combinations in a matter of seconds instead of
     whiling away the hours weighing up the real differences between Mega
     Bolters and Blastguns...



"This is what has hurt e40k- old players felt like their favorite army was
screwed, and would not play the new game, period."



     Fair enough. Each to their own, like I said above I hated SM because
     the detail given over to the individual began to take over the sweep
     of detachments. The two different systems should be seen as just
     that: TWO DIFFERENT SYSTEMS. It's like playing 2nd Edition Blood Bowl
     and complaining that 3rd Edition sucks because it's different - it
     doesn't matter, you still have 2nd Edition, you can still play it, you
     can still convince your friends to play it.
     
     As for simplifying Wh40k (which was mentioned elsewhere): in case
     anyone mentions sales to newbies, the designers clarified it as
     simplifying (i.e. streamlining) the system for *themselves*. See
     Necromunda and Gorkamorka? Well I'd put money on the fact they're
     testing grounds for Wh40k#3 (consciously or not). Now, if the sales
     people gave me this reason I'd be dubious, but the designers are
     really sound people. Trust me.



"I truely would like to thank all involved with the E41k- Its the best =
Hope for this epic system"



     ...as far as SM/TL-aholics are concerned. "...best Hope..." may be a
     little strong otherwise Obi-Wan ;)



"I _want_ Mole Mortars to be different from Rapiers."



     Fair enough, but under the new system how do you propose it?
     
     I suppose Rapiers could stay 'as is' with the Support Weapon stat.
     line and Mole Mortars could be given an FP (2? 3?) value and Artillery
     and keep the same range as the Support Weapon.
     
     Me? I'll just assume that when I put together Support batteries, the
     mix of weapons types gives the Support Weapon stat. line as an overall
     tactical effect on the battle. I don't worry about details, just
     tactics (and sweeping tactics at that!) adn army 'feel'. Yes I like
     DBA (et al) and yes I have seen similarities between that and E40k.
     
     
     
       o
     -Andy-
Received on Sun Nov 09 1997 - 12:45:28 UTC