If you have problems looking down at the game table and telling 2 weapon
sy=
stems apart (for that matter telling 10+ weapon systems apart) you
really s=
hould not be war gaming. The argument that having more than one
kind of su=
pport weapon makes the game "to complex" really is missing the
point.
I th=
ink what adds to the fact the game plays faster is the listing of each vehi=
cle in the detachment sheets. No more looking up in the rule books for a s=
ingle number in a large chart. It's all right in front of you.
Due to this=
reason, I personally don't see why GW couldn't have detailed the armies ju=
st a bit more. Overall, it may slow down the game set up, but during play =
it's all right under your nose on the detachment sheet. It wouldn't slow d=
own the game at all, providing there are no "special rules" for units. Any=
one designing house rules for units really should stick to the FP/SHWs and =
the game play shouldn't be sacrificed at all.
OTOH, there are certain aspec=
ts of the game that Epic40k doesn't cover. I think J.M.L.'s Epic 41k cover=
s these quite well. My complements to you.
Cyril Crocker
Dragon Slayer
dsl=
ayer_at_...
-----Original Message-----
From: J. Michael Looney [=
SMTP:mlooney_at_...]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 1997 7:00 AM
To: Space M=
arine
Subject: [Epic] Epic scale, rant and rave - long -
<rant>
Over the c=
ourse of the last couple of days there has been a lot of talk
about the "le=
vel" of game that Epic is, and what level of weapon detail
is "correct" for=
something of "epic sweep". The problem is with all of
these arguments is =
that NO version of Epic has "Epic Sweep".
Space Marine (1st ed), Epic SM/T=
L and Epic 40,000 are all Battalion
level games. For those of you that rec=
all when I posted the old USSR
Motor Rifle Regiment in Imperial Guard terms=
, the regiment works out to
be 10,000 points (9,974 to be exact). That is =
one third of one
division. That means a divisions is over 30,000 points i=
n Epic
40,000. Most likely closer to 40,000 point after the non regimental=
support stuff is taken into account. The Soviets had over 200 Motor
Rifle =
Divisions. 8,000,000+ points THAT'S EPIC SCALE. This messing
around with =
at most five or six hundred guys on a side is hardly "Grand
Tactical", in f=
act its rather micro scale tactics.
At Battalion level, the commander damn=
sure does know the difference
between a machine gun, an anti-tank weapon, =
an indirect fire weapon and
squad/platoon level small arms fire, and know d=
amn good and well that
you can't just use them all the same way. At this l=
evel the difference
between an 90 mm, 105 mm and 120 mm main gun on your ta=
nks matters.
How many men are in a Space Marine Tactical Squad? 10. How =
many mini's
does it take to make up an Epic 40,000 version of this? 10. So=
me people
have compared E40K with DBM and other "grand tactical" games. Th=
is
doesn't quite fit, in that in those types of games a single figure
repre=
sents 50 or more "real" men. Before Epic 40,000 can out I was
working on a=
set of rule (Imperial Space) that was based on the idea
that a single stan=
d was a platoon of men (read a detachment card in
SM/TL "the little cards")=
or 3-5 AFV. Sort of a SF version of
"Spearhead" or other "micro armor" ga=
me. My real job sent me on the
road for 3 months, so that died, and then E=
40K came out, which, as a set
of rules for a tactical wargame, is just fine=
. It, however, is NOT a
good set of rules for "Grand Epic Sweeps of Battle=
", at least at it's
current level.
Space Marine 1st ed went into to muc=
h weapon detail. In the "beta"
version, (WD 110, I think) what kind of gr=
enade a stand had mattered.
In some cases a 5 man stand could make 3 attac=
ks, each at different
target. If you used the WD articles for army design =
it had a rather
complex set of rules for doing so, other wise it just said =
"This unit is
worth X points", with no guidance as to how to make up you ar=
my. This
made for very slow play and slow set-up
SM/TL hit about the rig=
ht level of detail as far as weapons went,
however the lack of a simple set=
of rules for weapon effects made it a
bit twitchy to play, in that every w=
eapon in the game beyond simple
small arms fire had it's own "special" set =
of rules, not all of which
was well thought out. Then of course there was =
"pinning" and all the
oddness that went with that. It however has a very s=
imple set of rules
for army design, in the "Card" system. This made for sl=
ow play, but
rather fast setup.
Epic 40,000 has a simple set of rules for =
weapon effects and a some what
complex set of rules for army design. This=
makes for fast play, but
slow setup.
Given that the "setup/army design" s=
tage can be done before hand (weeks
before hand if need be) this is not imp=
ortant. Adding levels of
complexity to an all ready complex system that i=
s NOT used DURING (vs
before) play is NOT a bad thing. Adding levels of co=
mplexity that take
effect during game play needs to be done with some care.=
And yes, I am
guilty of making some some what complex house rules (my Eng=
ineering
rules spring to mind). I am working on changing them so that the
=
complex part is done before game play, not during.
If you have problems lo=
oking down at the game table and telling 2 weapon
systems apart (for that m=
atter telling 10+ weapon systems apart) you
really should not be war gaming=
. The argument that having more than one
kind of support weapon makes the =
game "to complex" really is missing the
point.
</rant>
--
Sillyness is =
the last refuse of the doomed. P. Opus
--
Geek code: GAT d-- s:-- a C+++ U=
L++ P+ L++ !E- W+++ N++ o K++ w+++ !o
!M-- !V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP t++ 5+ X R+=
++ tv+ b++++ DI++++ D G++ e+
h---(*)
r+++ y+++(**)
http://www.spellbooksoft=
ware.com
- application/ms-tnef attachment: stored
Received on Mon Nov 10 1997 - 20:02:09 UTC