Re: [Epic] Question about Objectives

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 22:45:44 +0100 (MET)

At 10:13 PM 16/11/97 EST, you wrote:
>
>Has anyone found, in their experience, objectives to be useful to actually
>capture? In the game that I wrote a battle report for (a couple weeks
>ago, Andy Skinner was Titan Legions, I was Orks), neither Andy nor I
>actually captured any objectives. My army's morale was driven down by
>left over blast markers alone. It seems to me that an all disrupt army
>should be able to win, even without actually causing any damage! Of
>course, my experience is very limited (I've played one game with morale,
>and a couple of others without), and we only played a 1500 point game.
>So, what do you more experienced generals think?


I'm an experieced general (just not with E40K) but I'll throw in my pittance
worth anyway. E40K is a game of min/maxing - that is to say a game of
squeezing your available points to maximum effect regardless of game
ballance. In SM/TL the army cards give us an easy measure of game ballance.
More than one company of something is cheesy and more than three support
cards of something is cheesy (a company of something would almost invariably
be three support cards worth). E40K has no such Table of Organisation
structure to fall back on, so you will almost certainly encounter plenty of
cheesemongering.

As to a poorly planned, quickly cobbled together, minimally play tested
gaming system (like E40K) having gaping holes in it's rule "system" - can't
say _I'm_ surprised ;-)
Securing objectives requires tactics, planning and other such considerations
which are irrelevant on the Epic scale... What IS relevant to GW is selling
lots of extremely expensive miniatures to lots of new customers...

(We all knew I was gonna say that, right?)

Agro


>
>
>Elias
>
>-----------------------------------------
>"Understanding is a three edged sword."
>
> -Kosh
>-----------------------------------------
>
>
>
Received on Mon Nov 17 1997 - 21:45:44 UTC