Re: [Epic] Net Epic (morale issues)

From: Peter Ramos <pramos1_at_...>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 12:05:58 +0000

Greetings!

Regarding Seths comments

> 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
>

Compulsory movement of units with fall back orders will take place
before units in charge orders in the movement phase.

The ideas regarding HQ units will be dealt with in its corresponding
topic(vey soon).

There are many issues regarding titans that will de covered in thier own
topic and issues like Seths regarding morale checks when charging titan
classed vehicles.

Nice ideas Seth thanks.

United we stand!
Peter
Received on Tue Feb 11 1997 - 12:05:58 UTC