Re: [Epic] Newbie Questions

From: Stephen Sheldon <stephes_at_...>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 11:53:06 -0700 (PDT)

>
> > As I mentioned before, you are not taking into account the unwritten.
> > Scouts can have 2 weapons for CC and generally do.
> >
> Not true. Shotguns, Needle Sniper Rifles and Heavy Weapons are
> very common amongst scout squads, and in my 5 years of playing
> the game, I have yet to see a solely close combat-oriented Scout
> squad.

I generally field 2 squads, 1 has a variety of needle guns with a heavy
bolter, and the other is equipped with Blind, krak, 2 swords, 1 flamer,
and a vet sergeant who normally has rad grenades (Rad grenades and
infiltrate is nice)
If I only choose one scout squad, it will be the CC one.

> > > They are very effective in combat, equal to a marine,
> >
> I disagree. In close combat, no. Marines have access to far
> superior close combat weapons. Since weapons carried by foot
> troops in Epic are incorporated into the stats and not differentiated
> according to the type of weapon, Marines are better than Marine
> Scouts.

Assault marines have better CC weapons, and they have 4 AV, regular
marines have a single bolt pistol, and given that a scout can have 2
swords, and the scout and marine have equal I & WS, the combat is fair.
The advanced deployment and ability to be hidden and waiting for the
enemy puts them in a better tactical position than marines...

> In ballistics, Marines have a better Ballistic Skill rating and have
> access to more guns. Same situation as above.
>
I didn't argue with you, but in actuality the scouts have more access, as
they can take scout weapons as well as special/heavy, and any grenades IIRC.

> No. The Scouts' infiltration simply puts them in a better position to
> attack their enemy. I have found that Scouts die much quicker than
> normal Marines, and this is mainly due to their weaker armour. The
> dispersed formation and infiltration really don't affect their
> survivability,
> due to the fact that the only thing dispersed formation affects is
> sustained fire weapons and can make troops charging the Scouts have
> a harder time reaching all the Scouts in the squad. Neither of these
> make such a substantial impact on the game as to warrant Scouts
> being not only equal, but actually better than Marines in Epic.

The dispersed formation makes you less prone to sustained fire, area
effect and charges, as well as allowing you to make more full use of cover.
My scouts, if deployed well, can really devestate a detachment before
they go down.

> All of my comments come from quite a bit (5 years) of experience with
> my Dark Angels army. I find that Scouts in Epic really don't represent
> Scouts in 40k, and I wish that GW wouldn't have made them so similar
> to normal Marines. In fact, Scouts are better than Marines, because
> they have all the abilities and stats of normal Marine, plus Infiltration.
> It just doesn't make sense to me.

I have been playing Dark Angels since RT days, I have been playing RT
since it was released, and in all my experience, I think that the scouts
are the most flexible, and tactically useful troops in the army. They
take some getting used to, and I find that they work much better with
more than one scout squad, but overall, I find them to be very powerful.
I think the stats in e40K are not too far wrong...

Steve

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When you dream there are no rules, people can fly, anything can happen.
Sometimes, there's a moment as you're waking, that you become aware of
the real world around you, but you're still dreaming.
You may think you can fly, but you better not try it...
-------------------------------------------------stephes_at_...--------
Received on Thu Jul 09 1998 - 18:53:06 UTC