RE: [Epic] New to list . . . want some opinions.
With the cliffs you mention, it gets a bit trickier. When
there's impassable terrain involved, I think the rules break.
Technically, you can't move units away from the enemy during an
assault move, but moving towards just gets them pinned against a wall.
It's that whole letter vs. intent again. :(
I think this is where good strategy comes in rather then broken rules. A
good commander would never allow his forces to become backed against a
cliff. It would be suicide (unless the cliff wasn't a problem-Jump Packs
or Skimmers).
Overall I think the Epic40k system rocks compared to SM/TL but I do miss
the uniqueness of the units in the older system. If that's the biggest
problem, go check out J.M.L.'s Epic 41k rules. He's done a good job so far
"filling in the blanks".
Cyril Crocker
Dragon Slayer
dslayer_at_...
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark A Shieh [SMTP:SHODAN+_at_...]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 2:02 PM
To: space-marine_at_...
Subject: Re: [Epic] New to list . . . want some opinions.
I know I'm rehashing a little bit in some cases, but... :)
Thane Morgan <thane_at_...> writes:
> 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:
Just in case you're not aware, we still talk about old Epic
(SM/TL) occasionally, but most of the rules questions had been hashed
out, and there aren't as many of us as there used to be (and I haven't
read the rules for a few months)
> 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, sure, the tactical stands have forced the assault stands
to retreat, but if the assault stands outnumbered the tacticals by
that much, they may be able to wipe out the tacticals while only
losing about 5-6 stands. And if they wipe out the tacticals stands,
they may not need to retreat, though they are broken until at least
the end of the turn.
> 2) We've seen 5 stands of orks boyz run up to a 30 strong detat of
> marines for a firefight at extreme range with a couple of troops,
> putting the whole detat to flight, and thus preventing stands, who were
> nowhere near the firefight but were stuck in the same detat, from making
> ork patte.
It looks like you're trying to use detachments as SM/TL
companies. We tried this for a while, and then caved in to their way
of thinking. They really meant it when they called it detachments,
you need them to be small enough to maneuver and not get bogged down
when a small part of it gets into trouble.
> 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.
Yeah, this is a bit of a problem. But can you honestly say
that this is a bigger problem than it was in SM/TL? I think it's
improved, myself. I had a rough go with the Eldar, since I never
seemed to win initiative on the turns I wanted to CC.
> 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.
Anti-tank isn't that bad, IMHO. It's the Land Raiders that
are the problem. We generally consider the Land Raider to be one of
the most powerful units in the new game, since it's a cheap source of
AT that has a good save, can go on Overwatch, and moves faster than
10cm.
> 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.
Keeping your arty on the edge will prevent enemy fliers from
just coming up your rear, but interceptors happen before fliers reach
the board. Just use your interceptors without fear of snap-fire from
ground forces, and realize that flak is overrated (you may have
already).
> 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?
Well, trying to drive right past an enemy does tend to get you
shot at. :)
Yeah, it is annoying to only be able to move 5cm in the
movement phase. However, moving within 15cm of the enemy is
considered to be engaging the enemy, since the scale isn't the same as
epic (They like to think of moving within 15cm as starting a WH40k
battle). Unless there are War Engines involved, you should never be
within 15cm of an enemy at the start of the turn. If you go on
assault orders, this means that you can move 5cm towards them, and
then move to engage in the Assault phase.
With the cliffs you mention, it gets a bit trickier. When
there's impassable terrain involved, I think the rules break.
Technically, you can't move units away from the enemy during an
assault move, but moving towards just gets them pinned against a wall.
It's that whole letter vs. intent again. :(
> 7) We've also seen titans unable to move because of three leftover
> stands from a previous close combat/ firefight sequence.
Snap Fire shouldn't be used when moving away from the enemy.
It's buried somewhere not in the description of Snap Fire,
unfortunately. If there are leftover stands from a CC/FF, that means
that the titan lost the engagement. In a situation like that, I can
easily see the titan being forced to stop its forward advance.
> Has anyone else run into this kind of nonsense? Has anyone found ways
> around it?
I guess I never really saw a problem with most of these, so I
didn't feel a change was necessary. <shrug>
Mark
Received on Fri Dec 05 1997 - 22:20:46 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:10:05 UTC