Re: [Epic] Warhammer 40K

From: WolfSamurai <bushkids_at_...>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 15:47:13 -0600

I agree that 4 turns is too little to do any real tactical manuvering and
you really do need a large table for that manuvering. My solution (if you
can) is to play for 6-8 turns (play around with it until you find a good #
of turns) on a table at least 6x6. Ajust some points values if need be
(there shouldn't be TOO much to do). This should give you a feeling of an
actual skirimish not just a shooting match. It also depends on who you're
playing. Some people enjoy the type of game that you've mentioned. Those of
us with a more refined (IMHO) taste like to manuver and play an actual
battle not a game of who can out-shoot who. And by all means deploy the two
forces out of that ridiculous 24 inch "recommended" starting distance. Make
the neutral zone a good 3 or 4 feet long and cover the table in tons of
terrain. That'll make each player think about each move and how it will
affect their plan and how they'll engage the enemy. It will also make
transports extremely valuable and useful. After all on a 4x4 table there's
no reason to mount your troops in a Rhino/Chimera/Falcon. It just makes your
troops a concentrated target. These are all just my opinions of course and
you'll have to keep in mind that games of this size (in terms of area, not
points) will take a considerable amount of time to play.

>Did you read the whole message, or just excerpt enough to complain about? The
>difference is that you can defend an objective in epic. A player cannont
move onto an
>objective on the last turn of game without his opponent having a chance to
respond.
>An objective in E40K is worthless compared to the value of the unit on it;
a 40K
>mission is worth several units.

Agreed. Objectives in 40K are a pain unless you do special scenarios or
similar things in each game.

>The kind of tactics 40K "missions" encourage: hide out of sight until the
last move
>of the game then rush to achieve the mission. I've seen it in most of the
games I've
>played.

As they stand right now I agree with you whole-heartedly.

>I see your a 40K fan. Fine. It's an OK game, if there isn't anything better
to do.
>Don't get riled when people point out it's flaws to people who want to know
what the
>game is about.

I really can't see anybody, even a rabid fan of 40K, denying that there are
lots of flaws and other vagueness. I certainly can't and nor would I.

>It would likely be a better systems played on an 8X8 table for many turns.
>Unfortunately, the points for the units were based on a four turn game, and
some
>conversion would likely be needed for some units.

It can't be that hard to change the points enough to play a game of that
size. Just talk with other players in your group and work them out together
that way there's no major disputes over what one person thinks is a
appropriate value for a unit.

>The CC system could use some help as well.

It's all that bad. It needs some help I agree, but if you wanted every game
to have tons of HTH you'd be playing Fantasy Battle anyway. HTH (in my games
anyway) is a rare and often crucial occurance that usually affects the
outcome of the game. If you're playing against or using Bugs that would be
different of course.

All in all I agree with you that 40K is not perfect and could be better, but
I feel that it's not as bad as you make it out to be as long as you put a
little thought and effort into it.



Aaron Roudabush aka WolfSamurai

The Master of the Spirit Blades Space Marine Chapter
Epic 40,000 General of Task Force Grey Wolf

"Peace through Superior Firepower"
Received on Mon May 11 1998 - 21:47:13 UTC