Brett Hollindale wrote:
> 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.
I really must take issue with this! So far, the worst faults I've found
are:
a) LRs are undercosted (but at leats there are counter-tactics)
b) THs are still too powerful (but as they cost a fortune, the problem
is limited)
c) Deathstrikes are still too gross (but giving the AT instead of DR
shots solves this)
None of the above faults can compare with the cheese possible under SM2.
Your "more than 3 of anything is Cheese' may be a good rule of thumb,
but severely handicaps many armies, who would be saddled with useless
rubbish (THINK ; when was the last time you saw an Ork DN ? A Hellbore?
An IG Leviathan?) just to bulk out the army. There are too many examples
of Galloping grossossities in SM2 to contemplate too, even under the
your '3's the limit' principle. Deathstrikes, Great Gargant Gutbusters
as Titan-killers, Plasma-Destructors + 1-shots, Eldar Anything (3
Warhosts?) etc etc etc
SM2 was pretty good: but when was the last time you saw anything retreat
(not get broken, retreat) from an untenable tactical situation? After
the initial 'jockeying for firing position' , all that was left was a
heap of die-rolling, followed by a round of Close Combat, with the
winner of the Initiative having a huge advantage. Many games lasted at
most 3 turns, and uncomfortably often, just 1. Good players would extend
this, but most players aren't that good.
E40K OTOH is by no means perfect: yet there are far fewer FAQs about it
in the first 12 months than were found every few months in SM2 after
years of development.
> 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...
Not in E40K. Don't let the (relative) simplicity of the Units blind you
to the fact that the game system is actually more complex, and richer
than the SM2 basic game mechanics. A bunch of Ork Boyz vs a bunch of
vanilla Space Marines now involves real forethought on both sides. Far
more than the placement of the Dragsta to cover the Battletower, the
SAGs on the hills, the exact positioning of the Librarian and
Techmairine etc.
Agro, one day you and I are going to have to have a few games together.
I'm certain you can teach me a few things about SM2. But just maybe I
can show you how much more important tactical planning is in E40K, and
how much less susceptible it is to Cheesitis.
> What IS relevant to GW is selling
> lots of extremely expensive miniatures to lots of new customers...
FINALLY we have complete agreement on something :) !
--
aebrain_at_... <> <> How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain| xxxxx Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia | xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
abrain_at_... o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo oo oo oo
By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale
Received on Wed Nov 19 1997 - 05:39:42 UTC