[Epic] Net Epic (morale issues)

From: Seth Ben-Ezra <Azathoth_at_...>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 00:57:47 -0500

I just had a few ideas concerning our current topic of morale that I
wanted to share with the group. So far I agree with what I have seen
regarding fall back orders (i. e. cannot hold objectives and must move
away from objectives in addition to the normal penalties). However, I
don't think that I like the immediate movement idea. That could become
far too complicated and disturb the orderliness of the phases. Rather
than have immediate movement, I propose that we add a fall back phase
to our movement system before charge moves. Use the same breakdown as
the other phases except that command units may not move during that
phase. This way, movement remains all in one phase, but troops falling
back are still at a serious disadvantage. After all, fleeing troops
are a tad predictable as to where they are going. :) I really don't
see the need for immediate movement. Troops on fall back orders can't
hold objectives, so whether they move during the combat phase of this
turn or at the very beginning of the movement phase of next turn
shouldn't affect anything, and I don't think that there are there are
any other reasons for immediate movement that wouldn't be solved just
as easily with this system (IMHO).

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.)

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. (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 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 hope that these ideas are helpful (or that they at least add fuel to
the debate ;} )

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf
Received on Tue Feb 11 1997 - 05:57:47 UTC