Re: [Epic] Battle report and comments (LONG)

From: Andy Skinner <askinner_at_...>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:49:12 -0500

Scott Shupe wrote:
> Andy Skinner wrote:
> > 2)
> > We haven't had a real problem with blast markers determining the winner
> > (the night spinners weren't all that impressive, except occasionally),
> You only had 2, right? Take 6+ next time and keep them
> on overwatch and watch what happens...

I had two in each of two detachments, for 4 total (demonstrating my math

> > 3) It is frustrating to have grav-tank Engines o' Vaul, and not be able
> > to maneuver the darn things. I want to go backwards, and just can't do
> > it.
> Their high movement plus the fact that they can move in
> both phases generally means that they can retreat quite nicely
> (you just have to sacrifice shooting for a turn). Or at least,
> I've seen Erik pull off similar maneuvers against me when I
> start getting too close to the dang things... I guess what you're
> objecting to is that you can't retreat and still fire?

No, there is no choice about firing. Scorpions have all-round fire.
It's just funny to look at them as grav tanks, and see that just turning
around takes 15 cm of their move. I don't really want to change
anything. The real problem wasn't their movement, but that they were
closer than they wanted to be, and didn't have much support because of
the army being designed to be the other half of an army with Erik's
Space Marines. As it turned out, once they survived the fire phase and
I remembered they had 6 (total) fp at 30cm, they were quite happy to be
so close ...

> > 4) I had some bikes in the front, and I put 'em on assault and hurried
> > to the back in the movement phase to put a finish on the assault marines
> > that got pushed out of the ruins. But the marines were finished in the
> > shooting phase. In the assault phase, should my bikes move (at least) 5
> > cm towards the place the marines were, or should they turn around and
> > move at least 5 back the way they came? The rules directly interpreted
> > would say the latter, but I think that isn't really the intent. This is
> > a special case.
> Why? The bikes are on assault orders. They move towards
> the closest enemy. The presence (or lack thereof) of their
> original target is not an issue. Target A has run off the field,
> let's go after target C.

Just because they had flown full tilt towards their target, and it
didn't make much sense to us that they'd whip around the complete
opposite direction. I suppose the usual case would be for target C to
be the same general direction as target A. It didn't make any
difference, because going 5 cm closer would not have put them in range
of C (the landspeeders) or anything near it.

Any other opinions? Is it as clear as Scott suggests? If the targets
weren't in such opposite directions, I guess it would be clear to me,

I know that danger lurks when we try to do too much common-sense stuff,
though. The Epic 40K rules give the impression of trying to not cover
all the cases to avoid complexity, but if we discussed alternative
possibilities every time they came up (like the LOS issue for marching
detachments), it would take a lot longer. :-)


Andy Skinner
Received on Mon Apr 27 1998 - 17:49:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:10:35 UTC