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

From: Ken Taborek <oberon_at_...>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 06:04:47 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Thane Morgan wrote:

> SM does not favor taking a defensive posture. Losing
> initiative means that you are completely unable to respond to your
> opponent's CC moves. It also means you can't CC skimmers, which
> hurts when you're playing a CC army against Eldar.
>
>
> (From Scott Shupe)
>
> This is incorrect. You use advanced fire to protect your close combat
> troops. You move those troops who can't find covering fire away from the
> enemy where they can't be charged.
>
> Thane
>

That is an unreasonable statment, given the size of the playing field, and
the charge range of most close combat units. If you expect to be able to
take and hold favorable terrain or objectives, you pretty much have to
suck it up when you lose initiative, and sometimes even if you win it. At
least, in my experience.
This is the single greatest annoyance I and my wargaming friends have with
e40k. It is completely unrealistic to say that an entrenched and ready
force can be engaged in close combat without getting to fire a single shot
at their attackers. Epic2 was _slightly_ better with regard to this,
since the charged unit got a shot off at the attackers, but they had to be
on first fire to do so.



--Ken Taborek oberon_at_...
"Show respect for age. Drink good Scotch for a change."- random fortune
Received on Tue Dec 09 1997 - 11:04:47 UTC