Re: [Epic] Flyers are Vehicles too ... Revisited and Revised (Long)

From: Andrew Nguyen <a2nguyen_at_...>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 17:37:38 -0800

I'm replying to serveral messages at once so the formating looks a little
different, but I'd rather send one big message to the list than 3-6 small
ones.


I wrote:
>> Unit Speed Range Firepower Assault Armor Notes Points
>> Marauder 45 30 5 2 5+ 35 (45)
>> Thunderbolt 40 15 2 4 5+ 30 (30)
<snip>
>> I couldn't decide to whether or not to let "normal" units fire at Flyers
>> with half FP and snap-fire. So, the rules right now, hopefully, stress
>> more powerful flak units and the need to use interceptors.

Colin wrote:
> I think if you are not going to allow non-flyers to shoot at flyers, the PV
> of all these units needs to be revised upwards. I realise that under the
> standard E40K rules non-flak only gets a snap-fire shot (and it's a cold day
> on a Daemon World when that happens), but they still get the shot. In
> addition the current rules the flyers can only operate every other turn
> (limiting their effectiveness). I have nothing against a better treatment
> of flyers in the game, but I believe (honestly!) that the rules were
> balanced by not allowing anything but snap fire but also by making flyers
> take a turn out. I suspect (and I've done no playtesting either) that your
> flyer rules will make flyers considerably more powerful than the effect
> intended for the game.

1) I agree, but since I haven't tested these rules either I didn't know how
powerful the units really were, hopefully, I can get some good games in over
the weekend. Depending on what happens then the following things might be
added:
 A) Rules stay the same.
 B) Non-flyers can fire/snap-fire normally.
 C) Non-flyers fire at 1/2 effect (FP) and snap-fire normally.
 D) Non-flyers fire at 1/2 effect and can't snap-fire.

I'm leaning towards D, because I doubt that ground units can react quickly
enough to snap-fire, and most non-flyer units aren't designed towards firing
up.

Dirk Vormann wrote:
> Why is the Marauder faster than the Thunderbolt? I guess Interceptors are
> the fastest Aircraft in every Air Force. (How can you fly escort missions
> if the bomber runs away from the escort?)

2) This is a prime example for where my formula fails. Due to the nature
of the stats for the Marauder, to make it cost anywhere near the listed
price of 45, either the assault or movement must be higher than the Thunderbolt's.
A possible solution would be to lower the Marauder's movement to 40 cm
and add some "Fluff" points to it to raise the value to 40 points.

Andy Skinner wrote:
> The minimum of 5 cm move seems too slow to me for the kinds of flyers
> most of these are.
>
> On the other hand, if I ever convert to Dirtside (I've been planning
> to use this stuff in Dirtside II since before I first bought Space
> Marine 2nd edition), a bunch of these things will turn into VTOLs
> instead of Aerospace craft. I just like to see the models on the
> table.

3) I'm probably going to raise the minimum to 15 cm (or 20 cm). Regarding
Dirtside II, my friend suggested that the Flyers could be either in
HIGH or LOW modes (a la VTOL's in Dirtside), when in HIGH mode the Flyers
act like the normal Epic 40k Flyers, and when in LOW mode the Flyers
behave more like vehicles. Of course, I think that all the Flyers that
enter the board in Epic have already entered their LOW modes, in order
to accurately fire and etc.

Off Topic: I would very interested in knowing how your Dirtside games
come out, because I also have a copy and have been itching to play a
game.

J. Michael Looney wrote:
>> Notes:
>> - Yes, Flyers can snap-fire each other and it does cause the Flyer to
>> stop it's movement, snap-fire range is 15 cm.
> I have a problems with the "causes the Flyer to stop" part here. Dosen't
> make a lot a sense, from a "Newton's 3 laws" point of view.
<snip>
>> - Non-flyers can't shoot at flyers except Flak.
> Minor problems with this. I would allow "Heavy Weapons" troops to fire at
> 1/2 fire power.
>
>> - Flyers cannot shoot at each other.
> I really have a problem with this, as in the "Real World" the range for
> tactical fighters Air to Air stuff is, as a general rule, greater than their
> air to mud range. Given that the Air to mud range for some flyers is 30 cm,
> they really should be able to engage at that range, using firepower, not
> Assualt, (i.e. normal fire, then the "Dog Fight". This could be the "Fox 1"
> missile fire before the "Mike Mike" knife fight. (for you air combat types
> out there)

4) When I say that the Flyer stops it doesn't mean that it literally stops
(which would make air combat somewhat strange) the same way that Combat
isn't divided into discreet phases. For example, a group of Flyers moves
to attack some bombers but as soon as they get within range the Air to Air
weapons fire and the fighters slow down to hover in and out of range. The
fighters don't actually stop in mid-air they just slow down in relation to
the bombers which is represented by an actual stop in the game.

I covered firing on Flyers some distance up.

The only reason I added the "Flyers cannot shoot at each other" clause was
that I thought that firepower is a reflection of ground attack ability (i.e.
the effectiveness of bombs) rather than air to air combat. In that situation
if a Flyer could shoot at an other Flyer it would be using its bombs'
effectiveness rating rather than a different air to air effectiveness. But
now that I think of it, most of the Flyers use weapons which could conceivably
be used against other Flyers, so the Flyer to Flyer shooting is back.

John Chapman wrote:
> While the standardized rules would be a nice thing game-wise simulation
> wise flyers (at least non-helicopters/vtol stuff that cant hover etc)
> probably are different enough to need special rules.
<snip>
> Yup I skimmed (sorry am at work....) and while the theme of E40k is
> towards simplification - Im one who thinks theyve already gone a little too
> far down that path (but the status quo is probably closer to the ideal than
> it was in SM2).
<snip>
> Im not a fan of a change similar to this but it was a good effort and
> seemed to be a decent set of rules for players who wanted these type of rules.
> hows that for subjectivity and objectivity :)

5) I admit that my new rules tend toward the unrealistic (at least in GW and
modern air warfare terms), but in the end, the decision of whether you
want to use these rules are not, is dependent on how simple or how real
you want your games to be.

Alun Gallie wrote:
> I see where you are coming from but I feel the flyers are indeed very
> different beasts to the other vehicles.
<snip - About: flyers can move across board and faster>
> As for the elder flyers and skimmers having the same engine
> technology, well I can quote numerous vehicle types that have internal
> combustion engines or numerous types with jet engines and yet the difference
> between these in speed, performance,etc in chalk and cheese.
<snip - About: Justification of Refuel/Rearm "same engine different performance">
> Anyway enough waffle, suffice to say in my experience and IMHO the Flyer
> rules are much closer to reality than many of their other rules. ( The
> weapon ranges are absolutely ridiculous, but this problem exists in most
> modern wargame formats, put it this why if ranges where true to scale my
> Goliaths would be lobbing shells four houses down the road (35km range
> converted to 1/300 scale = 116m) )

6) See previous responses regarding Simplification vs. Realism. Also, as John Chapman
wrote "we're entering the dangerous world of comparing GW to reality", I hope
that in 38,000 years that the universe is a much different place, of course
by living in this dynamic Technological Revolution I can't expect the dizzying
pace of change to continue forever, but I sure don't want to see a universe
in which war is still fought with swords and fists at point-blank range.


Finally, Done! My hands are beginning to cramp up. I didn't realize that this
message would get this long and I'm sorry or any inconvenience it has caused.

Thanks for all the responses and the criticism and I hope more pour in.
Hopefully, I'll get some playtesting done over the weekend and finish up
the rules to everyone's satisfaction.

 With your daily dose of Long-winded E-mails,
 - Donald Nguyen

Obligatory Quote:
"I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions."
 - Lillian Hellman

Trailer Land...

> andy
>
> --
> Andy Skinner
> askinner_at_...

> Merry Xmas!
> Cheers,
> Colin
>
> ******************************
> Colin Sinclair
> Department of Economics
> Glasgow Caledonian University
> Glasgow
> G4 0BA
> Scotland
>
> Tel: +44 (0141)331 3350
> Fax: +44 (0141)331 3293
> E-mail: csi_at_...
> ******************************

> JAC

> Cheers
> Alun

> DV
Received on Wed Dec 17 1997 - 01:37:38 UTC