Re: [Epic] Army composition, battle report

From: DAVID C LADO, DEPT OF NEUROSCIENCE <LADO_at_...>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 01:00:20 -0500 (EST)

>> > Our group has played a total of one game, with unbalanced
>> > forces. (I chose stompy troops, he didn't.
>>
>> I mentioned this in the store the next day, the bit about needing to
>> take big nasty stuff. It's an insiduous plan: to have a chance against
>> the other guy, you need to take big (ergo money-expensive) units.

Very synical, but not out of the bounds of reality ;). But seriously,
all of GWs minis are expensive, and I am quite confindent that GW wants
you to buy all of them, not just the big ones. The big minis may
cost more $$$ but that does not necessarily make them more profitable.
Or maybe they're just trying to sucker us into buying lots of war
engines (WEs) before they release the codexes and make the little
guys dominant again (so all the power gamers go out and buy lots
of them). Now that I can almost believe.

> Is this true? Hordes of troops & guns are no longer more
>than a match for the big war machines? Is so, damn, there goes my
>whole army... =(

It's interesting to me that I have seen several posts claiming that
War Engines (WEs) dominate the game basically side by side with posts
from people who want to tone down the critical hit charts becasue they
are so vicious. Personally, I think it is a little insulting to the game
designers to assume that (1) they wouldn't notice if war engines were
dispraportionally powerful (I know they don't playtest well, but it's
ridiculous to assume they never playtested WEs) or (2) to assume they
don't realize that 2D6 roll on a bell curve. I would assume that
when the critical charts were written up the designers were well
aware that 7s are more common than 2s.

David
Received on Mon Apr 21 1997 - 06:00:20 UTC