Re: [Epic] New to list . . . want some opinions.

From: John Chapman <john_at_...>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 12:01:29 +1100 (EST)

> > Sometimes a good ambush works against superior forces.
> > >> Yeah, but these are not ambushes. And its really easy to make one bad die roll, instead of neeading to make lots of bad die rolls as in
> the old system.
        Remeber though its not JUST the die roll. If youve got +3 over the
opponent the worst case it something like he hits on 3+ and you hit on 4+.
If youve doubled up on him youre still going to kill more of him than he kills
of you.If you dont kill enough of hom you may still have to retreat but you
shouldnt have many BMs on you and then you can come back next time......
> > > 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.
> > Large dets have some disadvantages. Use smaller ones.
        If can still work (just harder). Just spread out a little and suck 1
guy from 2 of his dets into FFs with a bunch of yours (ie break 2 of his units
with 1FF).

> participate. "Look, plattons A and B are taking fire; RUN AWAY!!!" is
> not something I'd imagine a space marine saying.
        Ok yes that is a little strange.......
> >
> > > 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.
> > It needs a skilled commander to prevent this.
> >> Thats a cop-out answer. Both of us are regarded highly for our wargaming skills, so if you could be a little more specific and less
> condescending, that would be cool...
        Careful-both those lines tend to be inflamatory. The 'it needs a skilled
commander' is kind of like the 'hey lucky dice rolls can fix any imbalance' line
 we get fed occasionally (ok its not quite so bad but yes it IS avoiding the
question). On the other hand the 'Im a butt kicking wargaming legend' kind of
speech often tends to degenerate into queries about just how useless the local
opponents are or just how ruthlessly the expert in quetion is willing to rort
his army lists. Heck you might be the modern day Napoleon but its unlikely
youll ever be able to prove it. Hmmmm that wasnt overly nice of me now - Im
not trying to start a bunch of flaming here so before anyone does Ill apologize
to anyone who may feel slighted (especially if they see my point).

> > LR's are very powerful. If you don't enjoy it, only take them assupport, in 1's and 2's.
        Not so much overpowered as significantly underpriced. But I wont go into
 this - others already have.
> >
> >> Not true! The flyers on ground missions are placed on the table, then opponent places interceptors next to them. Maybe they meant to say that
> intercepting occurs off table, but thats not what they wrote. I would
> be much happier playing that way.
        Youre a victim of the standard GW ambiguous wording. JJs FAQ answers
(theyre on the web somewhere) cleared that up. Get prepared to be happier
(I know I was :) ).
> > > 7) We've also seen titans unable to move because of three leftover
> > > stands from a previous close combat/ firefight sequence.
> > Units moving away are not snap fired at.
> > If a War Engines is snap fired at, is it not able to advance further? (Am
> > not sure now. Got to check the rules.)
        I dont see why WE's need to be exempt from the rule but either way
isnt likely to present major balance problems. However if those 3 stands are
within 15 cm of the titan they just beat it in either CC or a FF so the Titan
crew should worry about them......
> >>Actually, as a player who won ~ %90 of my space marine games, I can tell you that while losing initiative sucked, it was not especially
> devasting. It meant that you had to take a more defensive than offensive
> posture.
        Ummmmmm your experiences seem to contradict those of almost every
other SM2 player I have discussed this with. In a game which lasted say 3 turns
 the side which won init twice won significantly more often and if a side won
init all 3 turns it was rare that it lost (and that was usually due to a
horrendous error being made or unusual army matchups).
> (And actually, I've only lost one of ~ 30 games of the new epic; it just
> hasn't been as much fun. And no, It was adult vs. adult for most of
> them, not adult vs. kid or expert vs. beginner)
        See above comments.......
> 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.
        Its also a play balance thing - it makes surrounding and wiping out
an enemy much harder.....
> >>Why is everyone saying this, was there a white dwarf I missed? Is the english version different from the american? I can't see anything on
> P.47 of the rule book that says interception happens before the planes
> reach the table (though I agree it would be better if it did). It says
> to place the non-interceptors on the table edge, then place the
> interceptors next to them, in my book. Was there an errata page I
> missed?!
        Ahhh here was where we first noticed it. Note for ground attack etc it
has a long spiel about how you have to move them in a straight line along which
path any flak etc can take shots ? Well they never mentioned that that applied
to interceptors. We took that to mean either 1 of 2 things. The omission was
intentional and interceptors couldnt be shot at by flak (ie assume the actual
intercept was off board) or GW had been slack as usual and just not bothered
to mention it had applied to interceptors. We liked the off board idea better...
> Thanks to everyone who responded. Please tell me why interception occurs
> off of the table.
        Well logically - why not - in fact to avoid flak that would be sensible.
Rules wise well the actual book tends to be ambiguous (see above) and there
was an official Q&A sent out (hmmm it may have been in a WD too but Im not
sure about it and wouldnt know where to go looking either).
        Anyway when given the 2 choices and you know 1 choice leads to a dumb
situation that you dont like why not play with the other even if its not
official. GW has made bad rulings in the past dont let them wreck your enjoyment
 of the game by sending you on a desperate quest to adhere to their exact
> Thane
        As a final point with reguard to initiative/CC/FFs and a suggestion
(made by you????-well someone) that all movement should take place before
CC and FFs are worked out - well it could work but you may want to rethink
the points of a lot of units if you do. The only best defense we've found
against Greater Demon Dets so far is go first , Firefight them and break them
so they cant CC you that turn. Without the possibility of this dont you think
their incredible CC abilities coupled with low vulnerability to being shot
may make them woth more than the 25-30 points they cost?......

Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:10:06 UTC