Re: [Epic] Rants. Was SM/TL vs E40K unit costs

From: J. Michael Looney <mlooney_at_...>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 16:19:30 -0600

Scott Shupe wrote:
>
> Miller, Chris wrote:
> >
> > So, it's a compromise. We
> > think the game looks better this way, but we think sniping all the
> > leaders detracts from the fun of the game, so we're going to make this
> > rule, giving us the best of both worlds. If you don't have this rule,
> > then command units are always targeted first, and it's a valid, though a
> > bit cheesy,
>
> Cheesy? Sounds fairly intelligent to me, if it's
> allowed.
>
> > tactic as the rules allow it. So you get a nasty exchange of
> > fire as soon as people get into range, all the officers fall dead,
>
> And the other officers in the army learn to stay back
> behind the lines, safe in their Leviathans, instead of running
> around with the grunts where they can be captured or killed.
> While WWII might have been more entertaining if the European
> conflict ended with Hitler, decked out in Nazi super-armor
> (ref Wolfenstein 3D), slugging it out with a similarly armed
> and armored Eisenhower, things didn't pan out that way... Not
> that I'm neccessarily arguing for more realism in GW games,
> but I find it strange that in WH40k and the like, commanders
> are on the front lines slaughtering grunts in hth combat
> rather than sitting in a bunker directing the overall strategy.
> Sure, it's fun to run around with a superhero on the board
> causing vast amounts of mayhem, and sitting in a bunker isn't
> very heroic, but putting your leaders in a position to be
> easily captured or killed just so they can dice up some troops
> with their lightning claws doesn't seem to be particularly
> intelligent.
>

My point exactly. In most games the command element is just that, a
COMMAND element, not a fighting element. In the mutant world of GW
games, the commanders are the best fighters, but you can't shoot them.
WTFO.
Received on Wed Mar 04 1998 - 22:19:30 UTC