Re: [Epic] house rules (was Re: General Enquiry)

From: Scott Shupe <shupes_at_...>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:29:03 -0500

Miller, Chris wrote:
>
> > you can see over any terrain that is lower than you. I also think the
> > rules for woods and such are weird, being able to see all the way into
> > woods but not through them.
>
> --------> I actually kinda like this part. We always had
> problems before where one guy was in the woods and the question was
> "edge or not" - you could usually clarify by who shot/wanted to
> shoot/etc. but this way the question doesn't even come up.

        When moving units into woods, we would just say (in
cases where it wasn't obvious), "yeah, those guys are/aren't
on the edge." Still very simple. I have trouble playing
E40k because I see woods and I think, "AH! Safe haven for
my daemons!" And then I move them in there and they get
riddled with bullets. =(

        I don't really like the E40k method of handling woods
and buildings because it means there are NO places to hide
from popups, period. Plus, it's counter-intuitive (at least
to me).

> > One of anything should never be called "cheesy", in my opinion,
> > including the unadjusted vortex missile (though I'd prefer to adjust
> > it). But it seems odd that people build it (ordinatus) up as
> > something
> > people are trying to cheese with, and then (maybe other people) point
> > out how vulnerable it is to suppression. I'm looking forward to using
> > mine someday.
>
> --------> One of anything is great. It's when someone decides a unit is
> great and takes a huge number of them that the points system starts to
> break down. Vortexes are less expensive than war engines, so if I have
> an idea of how many war engines my opponent will take, I can just take a
> roughly equivalent number of V-missiles to neutralize them and I have a
> net point gain. Problem is all the background material indicates
> vortexes are rare, expensive, hard to produce, etc even though the point
> value doesn't really reflect this. They're supposed to be _special_, not
> _standard_, and going by that I'd start to get annoyed if I saw more
> than say, 1 per 500 points in the force, and really about 1 per 1000
> points is probably what I would consider "right" -YMMV. In SM/TL, I took
> one battery(3) of deathstrikes, period, and that was usually only in
> 5000+ point battles. Theres no rule about this, I just felt it was
> powergaming to take 3 batteries of deathstrikes regardless of game size,
> unlike another guy I knew.

        Are deathstrikes a main force unit in E40k? Considering
that they were support-card only in SM/TL, it seems like they
should be only available under the arty support section. Might
make fielding them a little more limiting.

> Leviathans are supposed to be command centers, so if someone
> throws 6 of them out in one battle, I want to know what the hell his
> force is supposed to represent - the planetary HQ? Points-wise they
> aren't that bad, but fluff-wise, 1 or 2 is probably the most you would
> see in one fight.Wanna use 3? Give me a reason - might help start a
> campaign!

        Mmmmm, I'm pretty sure that according to AoI, even normally
there are multiple Levs behind the lines. So I don't see a problem
with sticking a handful of them on the board. Rules-wise, in SM/TL
you'd be daft to only field one since if it pops you're got BIG
problems.

        The main problem I have with fluff arguments is (1) fluff
is not rules, it's color text and means nothing, at best it gives
you an idea of what a 'typical' force is made of but who says you
always have to play a typical army? And (2) (more importantly)
different people have different interpretations of the fluff. As
an example, in WH40k I've heard arguments both for and against the
all-aspect eldar army, both based on the background. Which side
is right?

> And really, I wish there was a better name for it than"cheese",
> as it's more a violation of fluff than anything else, and I usually
> apply "cheese" to exploiting game holes/wrinkles.
> Cheese I would reserve for extreme things like Ork armies with
> no boyz - just nobz and skarboyz, IG armies with no normal infantry,
> Chaos which is entirely marines and imperial equipment but no daemons,
> that kind of thing.

        What's wrong with no daemons? Or are talking about Chaos
in SM/TL with a bare minimum of GDs & IG arty/SH tank allies?

Scott Shupe
shupes_at_... shupes@... http://www.rpi.edu/~shupes
***********************************************************************
"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun." - Army of Darkness
Received on Thu Mar 26 1998 - 20:29:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:10:31 UTC