Thane Morgan wrote:
>
> So I'm looking for some reasons for people to play the new system, or at
> least some rules commentary which may shed some light on why our games
> have not seemed as fun:
>
> 1) Close Combat and firefights -We've seen way too many instances of
> where a detat of 20 assault stands has attacked a detat of 8 -10
> tactical stands, and the tactical stands have won.
Well, stuff like this is supposed to be evened out by
using the reroll fate cards... But yeah, it can be kinda
disturbing.
> 3)We've seen many games come down to who pulled the initiative chit for
> the assault phase; the guy who won initiative crushed the guy who
> didn't, even when the forces seemed equal.
I've seen even more games of Space Marines come down to
who won the initiative for 2 out of the 3 turns in a game.
Winning initiative for the assault phase is important, but
nowhere near as important as winning initiative is in Space
Marines.
> 4) Antitank weapons - seem absurdly powerfull. I have yet to see anyone
> stand up to my landraider Detats; they usually kill 2-3 times their
> point value. Frankly, I don't enjoy doing it.
I don't think it's AT weapons as much as it is ATs (or
any SHW) on Overwatch orders. Overwatch is too powerful, IMHO.
> 5) Imposible to defend against flyers; We've found that keeping one
> artillery detat on your edge of the board allows you to bring on flyers
> over top of them so that any interceptors take absurd amounts of snap
> shots.
You don't get snap-fire shots against interceptors.
Also, try using the rule presented in the Battles book that
requires the flyers to move all the way across the table.
> 6) On the matter of snap shots, we've seen two stands of troops prevent
> the movement of a twelve land raider detat (pinned up against cliffs);
> he tried to move 5 of them, losing 4, then gave up. Doesn't this seem a
> little un-fun and ridiculous? Shouldn't their be a limit on the number
> of snap shots a detat can pull?
Uh, snap-fire is there so that you won't move that
close to an enemy detachment in the movement phase. If you
want to get that close, go on assault orders. The game
designers could have simply said, "You may never get within
10cm of an enemy unit during the movement phase," but
instead allowed for it, as long as you're willing to take
the risk. In your example above, the LRs should have either
gone on assault orders or overwatch and wiped up the troops;
moving forward like that knowing about the snap-fire shots
is either desperate or stupid. The point is that the tanks
are not going to expose their backside to enemy soldiers.
> 7) We've also seen titans unable to move because of three leftover
> stands from a previous close combat/ firefight sequence.
The titan won't move past them in the movement
phase, but it will certainly have no problem mopping up
the leftovers in either an assault or a FF.
> Has anyone else run into this kind of nonsense? Has anyone found ways
> around it? Our biggest problems are with CC and FF rules; we are
> thinking about allowing both sides to move before resolving firefights
> and CC; or letting all units within support range get involved, even if
> they are from different detats, or going back to the roll-off system
> between stands. The nice thing about that system was that the die rolls
> almost always evened out, so a few bad die rolls wouldn't ruin the
> game.
True. I kinda miss the old CC system. I like the
idea of firefights, but it's almost too easy to cluster some
bikes around 1 stragler in a detachemnt and break the whole
thing. Which is just more reason to take smaller detachments,
I suppose.
As far as the movement stuff goes, it seems like
you were expecting something similar to how it was in Space
Marines, where you could run around wherever you wanted to
willy-nilly. I think the new movement rules are really good;
I like that you can't move your troops past the enemy until
you've taken care of them. Makes more sense to me than
having my CC guys charge past and ignore hordes of troops to
pin themselves against their target, thus making themselves
totally immune to being shot at by anyone else for that turn.
And, if I had won initiative and was moving second, I
wouldn't even have to worry about counter-charges.
Scott Shupe
shupes_at_... shupes@...
http://www.rpi.edu/~shupes
***********************************************************************
"You can't throw me to the lions! I'm Charlton Heston!" - Lard
Received on Fri Dec 05 1997 - 15:44:25 UTC