Re: [Epic] re: Support Weapons (long)

From: Mike Bowen <mbowen_at_...>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:54:17 -0600 (CST)

On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, Andy Meechan wrote:

>
>
> <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.

the e40k "core" rules are a good B+. Dirtside II(ground zero) and
Centurion(fasa) are still better, as:

Weapon Ranges:GW seems stuck with the pre-1815 ratio of movement to ranged
    weapon fire. HtH assaults are over-emphesized.Charge the Guns? A sure
    way to die since 1856. e40k should at least of used the SM/TL ranges

Off-Board Arty: missing since SM1. Since 1900, "big guns" have the range
   to be far from the combat on the front lines,yet still make an "impact"
   (I miss "THOR Orbital Strikes" or "drop a rock"in a sci-fi game)
   the cards don't do it- you should be able to buy off board support

Fortifications:Need to be more effective vs infantry. Also, poor rules
    for fighting in/from "intact" buildings

Flyer rules: I just don't like the e40k rules here. sorry.

> 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).

big agree here, and it not over-exaggeration.

>
>> "With e40k i see a lot more Min/Max Munchkin crap like a 20 standTermie
>> 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).

no, it's a problem with newbies,they read the book, want to make a good
army,figure out which are the "best" units, and load up on them. The few
examples are on detachments. the newbies have no clue what, say, a SM
army would look like, so they use detachments consisting of only the
"best" units. a cheeze fest. If the lists were TOE based, with some points
added in for customizing, the pregame army setup would be much faster,
plus much more balanced, rather than each side having the ultimate
"Kampfgruppe from hell"

> 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...

most players who have been at it since SM don't do this(well, there is
always at least 1 cheezemonger in each group, right?)I'm talking about
newbies playing e40k righ out of the box. Any point system with only
the cost of a unit being the sole limiter, can, and will, be min/maxed.

thats why I really like the scenarios in e40k-- much better than the
2.5k head-butting contests that some newbies seem to like so much.
It would be nice to see scenario packs, with preset army lists,
kind of like what is in Squad Leader.

> >
> "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.

borderline? They came in the TL boxset!

>
> 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'
like the WH40k Vehicle guide, which was good for what, 5? months till
WH40k 2nd Ed came out and tossed out all previous vehicle rules

I won't even start a rant on how the squatplayers have been screwed.

> 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).

heh. GW's coherency changes with each edition. "New Is Better, Please
forget the old stuff we did" ought to be the GW motto


>
> The Ork clans are easy enough to emulate, just build detachments based
> around the backgrounds given

and GW could have printed 4 more pages in the armies book to add them,
so they would be official. I don't like WD/CJ addins

> 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...

that was half the fun of custom titans! ;-)
>
>
> o
> -Andy-
>

**
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of
Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking
becomes a warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.

mike
**
Received on Mon Nov 10 1997 - 22:54:17 UTC