Re: [Epic] Bugs and Disrupts

From: J Andrew Evans <J_Andrew_Evans_at_...>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:36:52 +0100

I do understand what you are saying. I too feel that winning the game purely on morale loss
sometimes has a "lame" feel to it. However much in real war suppression fire and morale are key
in the end no one can win by retreating "to safety on the last turn knowing my opponent would be
sent
under 0 Morale by the existing BM's on his detats."

However I think several minor changes would help in this feeling of losing simulation. Firstly I
like what you mention below. I don't believe there is a rule which allows you to disband units,
as you mention, to avoid further BM loss but clearly allowing a commander to disband units (put
them on permanent retreat - broken in E40K terms - until they move off table edge) would allow a
player to remove units that were, by their negative morale effect, depleting the effect of the
whole army. Though, of course, he would lose their firepower for future turns. The only
detachments who could not do this would be those who were surrounded and therefore unable to make
the broken retreat move. Then, I suggest, the BMs etc should continue to be subtracted.

I also like your suggested rule but I wonder if you have to go that far. Perhaps leaving the BMs
rule as is but increasing the effect of objectives (positive and negative) would increase the
desire of players to increase theirs/decrease enemies morale by the unheard of step of capturing
the objectives!!

A#

Thane Morgan wrote:

> 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 - 07:36:52 UTC