Re: [Epic] Epic 40K Facts

From: Howard Liu <h2liu_at_...>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 05:57:49 -0800

Disclaimer: the following are off-the-cuff opinions, only, formed mostly
off of history class, bits of news coverage here and there, and watching
"Gettysburg" a few times. I have never been in the military, I've never
pointed a gun, and I don't even qualify as a grognard.


> Realism - suppressive fire (by adding blast markers).

Granted. Suppressive fire wasn't handled at all in 2nd edition Epic.


>Realism - long range fire isn't particularly devastating, but short
>firefights can break a detachment.
>Realism - to really do high casualties, you have to close with the enemy
>and mix it in combat.

I don't think these points are entirely correct. They add realism,
assuming that you're using the Chechen engagements as your point of
reference, instead of Gettysburg, the World Wars, or the Persian Gulf War.
Long range guns played a major role in the final push by the Confederate
troops at Gettysburg (Pickett's Charge? Can't remember, it's been a while),
inflicting major damage and annihilating a good portion of the army, not
just suppressing them. If I've got my terminology down, the Chechen
engagement was a example of siege warfare, in a city, which is generally
not what is represented in Epic. Engagements of the Persian Gulf War and
those in Chechenya were made under very different circumstances.

It also seems like a very infantry-centric point of view. From my
understanding, close combat is the province of foot troopers; tanks and
other vehicles are generally content to blast away at the limits of their
gun's range. Epic doesn't do enough, in my opinion, to differentiate
between tanks and infantry. Dirtside II does a more capable job, where
tanks aren't good at killing mass numbers of infantry, and infantry needs
heavy support weaponry to take down tanks. The idea of swarming over a
moving tank and planting charges on it sounds like a load of hooey to me.
For that matter, I'm not sure that non-infantry units should be subject to
the same rules for suppression and all - are they? Somehow, it seems that
psychology should be different when you're in a fully enclosed vehicle than
when you're wandering around the battlefield with nothing but a flak
jacket, a lasgun, and a few grenades.


>Realism - if your detachment is strung out in a line, and I clip you on
>the flank with a fair sized detachment, you're in trouble.
>Realism - if you have enemy behind you, even if it's only a few bikes,
>you're in big trouble.

I don't know how these work in Epic 40K, so I can't really comment.


>Realism - minor details dont's matter.

"It's the little things." Seriously, I'm a little miffed that some
characters seem to be finding their niche on the Epic battlefield (most
notably the Harlequin ones, also some in the Chaos list), while other
details (Titan weapons, various troop types) didn't.

Also, I've never liked psykers in either 40K or Epic, and the new Epic
doesn't look like it's going to be an exception. In my mind, psykers ought
to be either significantly weaker or much more powerful. Ahriman,
supposedly the most powerful sorcerer in the galaxy, is only worth thirty
or forty Space Marines. Bah. Backgroundwise, I would like them either to
play a minute role in Epic battles, or else akin to Tetsuo, who mostly
shrugged off an orbital weapon (minus an arm, anyway), or some other fount
of otherworldly power, who can extinguish suns with the power of his mind -
"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The
power of this Emperor-class Titan is insignificant next to the power of the
Warp." In this case, however, they would be better off lurking in the
background, and not playing an active role in the game.

Finally, I'm not sure how this comment holds true, in general. In many
ways, it seems to be at about the same level of complexity, it's just that
the details got shifted around. Which minor details, exactly, no longer
matter, besides Titan weapon fits and specific psychic powers?


Howard
Received on Sat Mar 29 1997 - 13:57:49 UTC