Re: [Epic] Bugs and Disrupts

From: Thane Morgan <thane_at_...>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 23:19:40 -0600

Greg Lane wrote:

> >
> > > 10 FP = 1 blast marker and maybe 2 casualties, 5 disrupt = 4 blast markers on a
> > > typical
> > > role.
> >
> > What! Disrupts surely work on a 4+ effectiveness. This is 50% chance so on average 5
> > disrupt attacks you get 2.5BMs (actually 2-3BMs). No way on a "typical role" are you
> > getting 4 BMs. Or am I still missing something? However to that extent your argument
> > still holds as the 10FP has still only won you 1BM.
>
> 5 disrupts = 2-3 BM's plus an extra BM for SHW's, so = 3-4 BM's (x 2 detachments = 8) I
> guess this is how Thane figured it?
>
> Yes. On overwatch, I's not too uncommon to get 5 or 6 BM's from one detat.
>
>
> > > Those 8 BM's will be deducting morale for 3 turns, and leave the unit stuck in
> > > place, waiting for an assault where they attackers will likely be at +2 just from
> > > BM's.
> > >
> > > I usually field this bug Detat:
> > > 4 assault spawn
> > > 1 HT
> > > 2 TW
> > > 5 biovore
>
> Nice detachment, but if you Mycetic Spore drop them, then the assault spawn can't be
> included ... vehicles, right? ... that is the 184, right?
>

Yes. The harzard of spore drops is that sometimes you're assault pods come in before your
artillery pods, and I've fought several nasty games where my poor genestealers had to attack
non-supressed enemies for several turns. When you're army lives or dies by 6 or fewer die
rolls a game (the assault resolutions), you really want those dice to get the +2 Blast Marker
bonus.So my tactic to overcomethis problem was to mount the unit on assault spawn, which can
march 60 cm and deploy (house rules) or 70 and deploy (official rules). They can then go on
overwatch for the rest of the game.

> > >
> > > 280 points. If spore dropped, 184 points. I field it in pairs and they can easily
> > > place 8 BM's per turn on 1 detat. In My last game, I used both detats to put 9 BM's
> > > on a Ork Battlefortress, then killed it. By nomal rules, -11 to enemy morale, +2 to
> > > mine. My opponent didn't like house rules, so we didn't use my normal house rule
> > > that you can't lose more morale from BM's on a detat than its normal morale, a rule
> > > I developed specifically to let my tyrannid games last more than 3 turns. Bugs need
> > > biovore to win assaults handily, but by normal rules they drop enemy morale way
> > > faster than their points would seem to merit.
> > >
> > > Thane
> >
> > Right the victory is clear, but we still have a weapon that, OK, has won you between
> > double and triple the BMs for the same points cost, but has not actually killed
> > anything.
>

Actually 3 to 5 times the bm's.

> > Or are you being cunning and winning just by lowering morale and not actually fighting
> > anything?
> >
> > OK to lay down the suppression fire but in the end someone's got to go in a kill them.
> > This is the "downer" of disrupt, they do not kill.
> >

The rules were written such that you don't have to kill anything to win. 200 points of
biovores will typically 10 BM's if they are on overwatch, even on a tiny, 10 attack bike
unit. On average, those 10 BMs will deduct 7+ 5 + 2= 14 morale over 3 turns of average
recovery rolling (2.5 per morale phase). Killing that unit might earn you 3 or 4 morale. If
they keep piling on BM's on different units each turn, you get -7 on turn 1, -7 + -5 on turn
two (-19 total) and - 7+ -5 + -2 on turn 3 ( -33 total). Of course, if you pile them all on
one unit, it gets much worse: -7 on turn 1, -15 on turn 2, -22 on turn 3, for a total of -44,
for one unit that may have been worth 5 morale on its own. I'll let units disband to avoid
further BM loss when things get too absurd.

There were many games I've won against timid opponents where the BM's did all of the work,
and several where I retreated to safety on the last turn knowing my opponent would be sent
under 0 Morale by the existing BM's on his detats. It is a really lame way to win, and was
one of the reasons I didn't play for several months. Then I started the BM/morale loss
limiting rule, and it worked out better.

Now, I know there will be some people who say "If you didn't like to win that way, why did
you play that way. Just fight the last turn like the BM's wouldn't have won it for you." The
reason is, that would be stupid. I play these games to think, and no gamer should have to
lobotimize themself to play a poorly designed game "in the spirit" of the rules designers. To
go from "well, I can win this game if I don't get any more of my army killed" to "this game
is pretty well wrapped up; might as well thow my army to the whims of the assault die one
more time" is like lobotimizing yourself; you have to do something stupid to make the game
enjoyable.

I put up a rule many months ago that I think would make Epic a much more interesting game:
Double the VP for objectives, and have BM's reduce morale only for the turn they exist. This
would mean calculating morale for BM's like VP were counted for objectives in SM/TL. After
calculating morale losses for objectives and casualties, temporarily subtract BMs from
morale; if that was not enough to win the game, the BM morale was added back, and the game
was fought on. This would be ideal, except most of the objectives don't actually lower an
opponents morale, so the games would go to total attrition. I think ultimately such a system
would work better, but the objective rules would need to be tweaked a bit first.

I like the supression rules for E40K pretty well, except that shadowswords get shut down
easier than 2 tactical stands, or 2 land raiders. The problems are how they affect wE's, and
the long term affect they have on enemy morale.

Sorry for the long ramble.

thane
Received on Mon Sep 14 1998 - 05:19:40 UTC