Re: [Epic] Sorting out the Dominatrix

From: Greg Lane <greg_at_...>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:25:09 -0500

Dick, why the 'attitude' here? I am just discussing it and am getting some
interesting feedback from others on the list ... what this list is for, right?

I understand the rules thoroughly. When I post I am seeking reasoned arguments for
and against the specific arguments I put forward. It is a discussion, at least ...
actually I am seeking a dialogue. I really am not looking for 'pronouncements from
on high' ladled with innuendo.

But, this is a public forum, so we all have to put up with what we get.

(see notes below)

Dirk Vormann wrote:

> > Now, twice, different RoolzBoyz (I know, just read the rest, ok?) gave me a
> > interpretation that the War Engines firepower would need to be offset first,
> > before the BM's apply to the SHW, EVEN if the WE FP were "out of range". Such
> > is the cause for my request to Allen to have Jervis clarify this point.
>
> Have the point clarified - ok. No more.

No More ... How did you mean this? As an Order!?!? ... Who are you?

>
>
> > By the way, I believe the same argument extends to a detachment of artillery
> > with infantry support. The Artillery can't fire just because they have a
> > couple of BM's and no enemy are in the supporting troopers FP range? Why
> > would you ever assault the Artillery ... which should be a primary tactic to
> > neutralize these types of detachments.
>
> 1) add up FP
> 2) place BMs according to that FP
> 3) substract BMs from THAT FP.

There are numerous exceptions to this for SHW's and that is what we are discussing
here, how those exceptions are interpreted and applied ... and now how the new
errata are applied

>
>
> That's the normal order. There is no exeption mentionen for WEs, so BMs
> can only be substracted from whatever is in range for the time being.

Except for that nasty interpretation from the RoolzBoyz ... and possibly further
interpretation from the new errata in Firepower ... and then there is Jervis

>
>
> > Also, a detachment of Land Raiders in support of infantlry is moving across
> > the field and picks up a few BM's ... the first thing suppressed is the heavy
> > tanks, just because they are in range and the troopers FP is not? This is not
> > a good simulation.
>
> GW games are no simulation whatsoever.

Not true ... Epic is a wonderful operational level simulation ... not just my
opinion, but that of several ex Army and Marine types (sgts and officers who have
been in battle) who say it has a better feel than SL/ASL

Also ALL wargames are a balance of gaming and simulation ... and, in general, Epic
has a very nice balance at an operational level. This one troublesome rules
interpretation of BM's stopping a single SHW was irksome ... new errata in
Firepower seems to clear it up a little. Now, if the barrage weapons were not
interpreted as a single weapon, but their FP were reduced by the BM's ... since in
other instances they are treated like FP weapons (applying BM's), then part of teh
problem would go away.

>
>
> > Not a perfect solution, but it does make sense and works in most cases.
> > Imagine beign Eldar and having the Engines of Vaul shut down by 3 BM's ...
>
> Don't have them shot at. Possible.

Well, to get into firing range, they pretty much have to be exposed to artillery,
barrage type weapons, and Disrupts ... which can place a couple of BM's pretty
easily.

>
>
> > even though they have some FP, but it is just barely out of range ... it was
> > that situation (and I was his opponenet) that made me reconsider this whole
> > thing.
> >
> > It even works for the Imperator, which could be shut down by just a couple of
> > BM's until its FP comes into range. Can't buy that either. SHW's, especially
> > those mounted on large platforms are not that susceptible to suppression.
>
> A couple means six here.

6 using the new errata "shots" not "weapons" ... less before. And, even 6 is a
ludicrously low number for the SHW's on this giant to be shut down ... use that
inherent FP and it gets a lot more reasonable.

>
>
> a) that's what the rules say

You say ...

> b) the rules are bad

No, may be misinterpreted or need clarification or minor adjustments

>
>
> a) is definately true, b) may have to do with game balance

Well, we agree on one thing, this is a game balance issue ... I call it balancing
gaming and simulation.

>
>
> DV
>
> Post office does not deliver mail without postage. And sometimes, even
> with.
Received on Thu Sep 10 1998 - 15:25:09 UTC