Re: [Epic] Blast Markers

From: mlooney - IOnet <mlooney_at_...>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 21:25:24 -0600

Miller, Chris wrote:
>
> > ----------
> > From: e41k_at_...[SMTP:e41k@...]
> >
> -------> I swear, this man is developing more e-mail addresses...

5 at last count, plus a whole domain of my own.
mlooney_at_...
mlooney_at_...
jmlooney_at_...
e41k_at_...
mike_at_...

I have several other, however, except for the ring dude of the north, I
don't think any of y'all have access to them. As it happens, I am on
the list twice, for some some what odd reasons. e41k_at_... is my
archiver, all it does is collect this list, so if I miss/delete
something that I want to save, I will have access to it with out having
to do a get #### space-marine from majordomo, which is a real pain at
times.

>
> > Ok, warning this is a rant.
> --------> 'Bout damn time. Where ya been?

Real life. It sucks some times.

> ------> One great thing is that it's multi-faceted: What do BM's do to a
> unit? How does this unit react to them? Maybe special units can pull
> them off more quickly, while green units do it more slowly ; maybe
> certain weapons inflict more or fewer of them...it's great.
>
> I'm not sure that I'd buy AT is closer than TL to what E40K is -
> neither one of the earlier versions resembles it mechanically, and they
> were both pretty focused on individual stands and individual weapon
> systems, whereas E40K looks at things from a much different viewpoint. I
> think BM's would be difficult to implement with either of them precisely
> because of that - an infantry formation in the old rules might be 3
> groups, each of 5 stands, and each stand takes it's shot on it's own -
> do the BM's mean one stand loses it's shot, or are they a die modifier?
> One of the best things about the new system is the way it's built, BM's
> fit seamlessly into the whole thing.
>

My current thought on AT/SM vs E40K (and this just came to me just a few
minutes ago, let me stew on this for a while, is that E40K is the
platoon level version of AT/SM, much like Command Decision is the
platoon level version of say, WRG 1925-1950. Regardless of this, E40K
feels more like AT/SM than SM/TL due to the use of army lists, not pre
designed armies, IMO.


> I would still like to see more importance applied to objectives for
> the battles in which they are used - right now they kind of turn up all
> over the place without being worth the effort, thus adding little to
> play. We could have the standard "meeting engagement", "bypass", and
> "ambush" type battles without using objectives at all. For some battles
> though, the objectives should outweigh most other considerations - I
> _like_ the seize and hold type missions, especially if one side is
> definitely on the defensive and one is on the attack. The "recovery"
> type missions are fine too, though it can turn into a kind of football
> game with high-mobility units - just assume they're fighting over the
> body of a famed commander or something.


> In short I like objectives, I just don't like tossing them in
> randomly to every scenario. The old "two armies blasting away at each
> other just because" gets old after a while. Unless you're playing a
> campaign, where you tend to come up with your own objectives...

Then do some thing like the table in "Fog of War", where you must do x
to objective y by turn z. BTW, has any body ever won drawing a Queen in
FoW?


> Chris Miller
> (somewhat surprised at the lack of head-butting in this post)

Me too, I think someone hasn't read it yet ;-)
Received on Tue Mar 31 1998 - 03:25:24 UTC