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

From: Thane Morgan <thane_at_...>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 19:40:23 -0700

Sam {Nurgatomic Dustbin} wrote:
>
> Thane Morgan wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
> WHEN a stand of people die some may be still 'ok'. Mortally wounded,
> slowly dieing, or just getting in the way.
>
> I FEEL that casualties should be left where they died (face down to
> remind gamers) and if anyone enters an area heavily strewn with these
> dieing heroes they should count it as dangerous for all infantry and
> vehicles, not war machines. This is to represent the warriors attempts
> at killing 'just one more before they die!'
>
> Any comments on this??
> --
> Sam
> Nurgatomic Dustbim
> www.special.reserve.co.uk/n64

Sorry, I like the idea of leaving casualties on the table. I don't
understand why CJ suggested hiding your infantry behind still active
tanks; the rules being what they are now, you can keep a player from
killing expensive tanks with a buffer of infantry (turns out troops cant
tell a priority target from some ineffective grunts in the 40th
millinia).

Thane
Received on Fri Jan 09 1998 - 02:40:23 UTC