Re: [Epic] Net Epic (morale issues)

From: nethol <nethol_at_...>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:28:18 +0200

----------
> From: Seth Ben-Ezra <Azathoth_at_...>
> To: space-marine_at_...

> 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.)
>
Well, attacking a Titan, or any valuable unit for that matter, with fast
low cost units is more of a problem of scruples other than of tactics. Real
wars don't have much of the former. A single spy or terrorist with a
powerful bomb can destroy a whole installment. Against a Warlord Titan (900
pts), a veteran SM det + THawk (costs 400) almost always win. If you use
THawks, even cheaper troops would suffice against artillery as well. The
tactical answer is, of course, defending your valuable units well; pad the
backs of your titans with lighter troops. I also refer you to the recent
discussion titled "cheese".

> ...
> 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.
 
This would make Epic like Warhammer, in which you may lose whole units
without firing a single shot. To my opinion, WH is not a game "where mighty
armies clash" but rather "a game where units look forward to the first
chance to flee" (not that it's inconsistent with the reality, but it makes
a lousy game). I'd say this would strip away the dynamism of Epic.
Received on Wed Feb 12 1997 - 10:28:18 UTC