Re: RE: [Epic] Chaos Land Raiders

From: Chad Matlick <cmatlick_at_...>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 12:07:55 -0400

space-marine_at_...,Internet writes:
>> GW's targeting rules and why I think they suck and why power gamers
>think
>> they rule?
>>
>> Lets not forget that one Epic turn is 4 turns of WH40K, so one "shot"
>by a
>> land raider is 4+ shots in WH40K.
>
>So why can't I brew up 4 ork battlewagons each epic turn then? I can do
>that easy in 4 turns in 40k with an LR.
>
>I have thought about AT shots and how they need fixing-- but the results
>are sometime too drastic, or change the game mechanics too much.
>
>Of all, I like the idea of AT shots vs. Inf counting as 2 fp instead of
>the AT shot.

Personally, I think any game that attempts to emulate the game mechanics
of 40K on a larger scale is doomed to failure. From my perspective, I care
very little about how Epic compares to 40K (which I also play), and more
about how it functions as an autonomous game. If you are attempting to
make everything click nicely, the LR usually includes a heavy bolter,
IIRC, which is effectively ignored in the Epic rules. This could explain
its effectiveness against infantry stands.

In my gaming group, we ignore the landraiders ability to pick targets; we
simply roll FP first, then role for the AP shots after the targets for FP
have been removed. Assuming you have a mixed detachment, this tends to
weed out a lot of the lightly armored models, leaving the Raiders to deal
with the tough stuff. Noone has complained so far. Firefights, on the
other hand......


Chad Matlick
WISe Network
cmatlick_at_...
Received on Fri Jul 10 1998 - 16:07:55 UTC