Re: [Epic] Modeling and the game (was Casualties)

From: Thane Morgan <thane_at_...>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 19:33:04 -0700

Andy Skinner wrote:
>
> Los wrote:
> >
> > Well I guess it depends on whether you can afford to spare some extra
> > figures. People will go to extrvagant levels and spend lots of money to make
> > a realistic tabletop battlefield with terrain craters etc, then you just flip
> > the bases over for casualties? I'm willing to sacrifice an extra sprue or two
> > for effect. Also some black cotton for burning wrecks. Never once has anyone
> > whose seen it complained about the efeect. I guess there's a little modeller
> > in me <g>
>
> Does this bit of modeling have an effect on the game? Should it?
> Remember that someone joined the list (still here, I assume) and
> said that in one of his first games, his opponent got some Rhinos
> on a crucial bridge. The Rhinos got shot, and there was the question
> of whether they stay there and block the way or are removed. We
> normally remove casualties from the board--the shots that blew them
> up must have blown all the bits right off the bridge! Epic 40K doesn't
> say anything about this in the rules that I remember, but does suggest
> making smoke clouds or separate casualty figures. ("GW mail order? I'd
> like to order a second Space Marine army for casualties. I'm going to
> paint them up the way I did the good ones, then spend extra work on to
> make 'em look blown up. I'll be getting into Orks soon, so I'll two
> of those armies, too. You guys always seem so happy when I call." :-)
>
> If you do use wrecked vehicles as scenery, do they count as terrain?
> I assume they don't affect line of sight (they didn't when they were
> alive), though a Land Raider is as big as at least a part of some of
> my scenery. Would it add interesting (not complicating) bits to the
> game to handle this? (Engineers or vehicles needed to get enemy
> wreckage off the bridge.)
>
> Citadel Journal allowed infantry units to follow a friendly tank
> closely and use it for cover. Seems like a blown up tank would offer
> pretty much the same thing. (I wonder if the bulk of that CJ rule
> would have been handled by saying that vehicles could block LOS,
> and not infantry. I know it doesn't handle the CC part, but I don't
> think that's necessary, anyway.)
>
> some ramblin'
>
> andy
>
> --
> Andy Skinner
> askinner_at_...

I wonder about those CJ guys; why would you want to let your tanks get
killed first. I guess you could take fewer casualties as an imperial
player with this tactic, but most infanty is 1/3 the cost of the armies
vehicles, so losing just a few vehicles cost more than losing a lot of
infanty. My infantry leads until the rules let opponents target vehicles
over infantry (even 40K allows this . . . ).

Thane
Received on Thu Jan 08 1998 - 02:33:04 UTC