Re: [Epic] Question about Objectives

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:45:39 +0100 (MET)

At 09:39 PM 18/11/97 -0800, you wrote:
>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!


No worries! I haven't been backward in coming forward - there's no reason
you should be!


>So far, the worst faults I've found are:
>a) LRs are undercosted (but at least 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)


That doesn't sound too bad, but remember that I was only commenting on a
post complaining about the lack of usefulness of objectives and the
cheesiness of massed disrupt weapons...

I haven't collected the reams of problems that others have writen about
(because it doesn't matter to me - I'm a heretic...) but there have been
heaps, haven't there?


>
>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 ?

I love Orc dreadnaughts...


> A Hellbore?


Don't have one - have never seen one...


>An IG Leviathan?)


Love 'em, although you'd want to take more than one due to the problem with
your chain of command being broken if your last one dies...


>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.


I agree that there are galloping grossities (although I'm not actually
convinced that these listed below actually qualify).


>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?


Scum moral troops retreat all the time from completely winnable tactical
situations, but one of the great things about EPIC is the gothic background
where troops would willingly lay down their lives for an emporer they've
never seen...


>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.


Yeah, it's a lot like chess really. After the initial jockeying for
possition all that's left is for someone to recognise an untenable position
and resign. And, as we all know, the winner of the only initiative roll
(who gets white) has a huge advantage... (Of course the "jockeying for
position" can be pretty interesting sometimes...)


>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.


I'll have to take your word for that (I wasn't around that long ago - was
there even an internet then?) but if there were more FAQ's in those days
than I've seen on this list - there must have been a s#!tload...



>
>> 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.


Actually, I see that as a drawback. I like simple mechanics and I like
flavoursome units.


>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.


Yeah, I'm still keen.


>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 :) !

Amen!

Agro

>
>
>--
>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 - 12:45:39 UTC