Thane Morgan wrote:
> First of all, Zyklon B was innovative; that doesn't make it good. Secondly,
> innovative may be too strong a word. There have been plenty of war games which have
> used reduced stats for showing temporary battle dispersion. Usually, this has been
> flipping a counter over, but a few have used markers which reduce stats for each
> marker on the unit.
>
1) Zyklon B was not innovative, it was derivative of American
pesticides.
2) That's a sneaky way of making almost making a personal attack their
my friend.
> I like the effects of BM's on normal units. I think that if you can shut sown a WE
> with one blast marker, easily delivered from a disrupt shot, then the WE's should
> cost a lot less. I think that winning a game by hiding some nightspinners/plague
> engines/biovores/pulsas and laying 10 BM's in one turn on the only unit which could
> assault them, is a lame gaming experience. It's not hard to do, you don't have to try
> to "cheese" out an army to do it. I made a solution that kept the useful disruption
> effects of BM's, without the absurd morale loss they cause. Now you can suppress a
> unit, then kill it properly while they cower in their trenches.
To place 10 BM via disrupts takes 20 units. Ok, 18 if you include the 2
for SHW
That is a full all slots filled Ork detachment ,4 detachments of Eldar,
2 detachments of Nurgel engines and 2 detachments of Biovores. Yes, you
do have to cheese out your army to do it. Except orks, which only have
45 cm range, you can't lay down 10 bm in one turn with one detachment
via disrupts, on the average. In the case of Eldar, your first example,
you can't do it period. Max. BM, assuming you make your 4+ is 5. You
don't score any hits, as such, so you don't get any for SHW fire.
The problem here is not the effect of BM on moral, per se but on the
fact that you can only yank off 2.5 per round, and that all troops pull
them off at the same rate. As I said in an earlier post, I feel that
troop quality, one of the few things that GW didn't swipe from CD when
making Epic (hum.. not quite true, AT/SM had elite units which had the
more or less same game effect as elite does in CD) would go a long way
toward fixing the problem.
>
> > As long as every one at the table, understands and accepts the rules in play, then it is an even playing surface to game on.
>
> This was exactly my point. There's no point insulting people as "whiners" because
> they're trying to improve the playing experience and tactical level of a game. No one
> was telling him to play this way, it was a suggestion for people who found blast
> markers a real downer on the game due to morale effects.
>
I with draw the "whiners" remark. I however stand by the main point of
the rant, in that BM and their effect is a good thing, and the area that
needs tweaking is not their effects, but their removal.
> Though I enjoy playing E40K, I've found it far less enjoyable and stimulating than
> 2nd edition. Judging by the few players left from 2nd edition times, that is not a
> rare sentiment. I may never forgive GW for jerking our group around, especially the
> three players who bought SM/TL starter boxes and then couldn't get any miniatures for
> six months. I'm not sure what your above comments were leading to, but I've spent
> enough on the game to feel justified insulting the new rules to my heart's content.
> It's very cathartic. Try it!
But SM/TL, as a war game, is, well, flawed. I like game that go past
2.5 turns on the average. A short game of E40K goes to 4 and many go a
full 6.
>
>
> > Its my hobby, my buck and I will Wargame the way I want, for the fun of
> > it.
>
> Good. Did I say you shouldn't?
>
Nor did I say you should not either.
Received on Tue Mar 31 1998 - 09:43:32 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:10:32 UTC