Re: [Epic] Net Epic (morale issues)

From: Michael the Liu <mikethel_at_...>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 00:21:39 -0600 (CST)

A bunch of stuff which I agree with snipped out about not having immediate
movement.

>Also, while I'm on the topic, I want to cast my vote in favor of
>morale checks for charging Titan-sized vehicles. An occurrence in a
>recent game illustrates my concern. I was teaching my brother how to
>play Epic, and, since I have only TL and Marines, we were forced to
>play these armies against each other. I know, I know, it's not really
>fair to the poor TL. Anyway, he was fielding a Warlord Battle Group
>(among other things). In the second turn, one Titan was charged by a
>detachment of Bikes and another Titan was charged by a detachment of
>Land Speeders. Both Titans took critical damage to their plasma
>reactors and exploded. Okay, so I lost a bike squad and a speeder
>squad. Big deal! That's 4 VP vs. 16 VP. That's just wrong! For a
>Titan to be pulled down by such piddling units is inconceivable.
>IMHO, close assaulting any Titan (not just an Imperator) with anything
>less than another Titan should be a final act of desperation, not a
>consistent game-winning technique. Requiring morale checks is a step
>in the right direction. (Another suggestion, which is a bit off
>topic, would be to tone down the multiple attacker bonus in close
>combat vs. a Titan or something similar.)

Hear hear! I am strongly in favour of making Titans more powerful, as their
current weakness is pretty apparent from all the people on the list saying
that they don't think TItans are a good deal. It has always bothered me
that jet bikers and such can even have a chance of killing those things
(what are they gonna do? run into it?), and a required morale check for
being charged/charging one of them is a big step in the right direction I think.

>I also had an idea regarding command units, which also relates to the
>placement of detachment cards. It has been pointed out that in some
>armies, command units act more as ultra-powerful units, rather than as
>headquarter units. My suggestion to rectify this is simple. All
>detachments in a company (and any attached detachments, not including
>special cards) are forced to make a morale check when the company's
>command unit is eliminated completely. This is similar to the rules
>for GD's in Chaos. This would force a player to consider carefully the
>actions of his command units, rather than throwing them recklessly into
>the fray.

This is an interesting idea. However, not all units have command units
necessarily (frex Eldar), and that is part of their character. And of the
Eldar's only 2 command units, one is actually supposed to be an
ultra-powerful unit. However, this idea still has promise, perhaps we could
apply it to just armies with company commanders.

>(A related but VERY hypothetical idea: create army commander
>rules. For example, Marines already have the Space Marine Commander
>special card. Eldar could be given a new Farseer special card. Allow
>these commanders to have a choice of special abilities RELATED TO THE
>TACTICS OF THE GAME, NOT JUST A COMBAT BONUS. A good example of this
>is Ragnar's +1 to initiative rolls. The games in which I have fielded
>him, I have had him skulk behind a building in my deployment zone doing
>nothing. His only purpose was to provide that +1 bonus. The Eldar
>Warlock's ability to permit units to place orders after orders are
>revealed is also is a good example of the type of ability that I have
>in mind. Anyways, if this commander dies, each detachment in the army
>must take a morale check. So, the advantage of having the commander is
>balanced by the need to protect him. Just an idea.)

I like the idea behind this too, though this could get complicated, and we'd
have to create many new units.

>I have one final suggestion regarding morale. Fear is contagious,
>especially in a battle. A unit, in otherwise good shape, may see a
>nearby unit begin to flee, lose its nerve, and run also. Many other
>wargames incorporate this idea by requiring morale checks when a
>retreating friendly unit moves within such-and-such a distance. Why
>should Epic be any different? Just pulling numbers out of a hat,
>let's say that a unit falling back causes other friendly units to take
>a morale check (at +1 if the unit isn't broken) if it moves within 10
>cm of one of them. The bonus is to reflects the lower chance of a
>unit in good order running. However, a broken unit, already
>demoralized and shaken, that saw a fleeing friendly unit, would be
>more likely to join in the headlong flight. Obviously, this is a crude
>example and would have to be refined, but I think that you get the
>general idea.

I like this idea as well. I cast my vote for it.

Mike the Liu
Received on Tue Feb 11 1997 - 06:21:39 UTC