Re: [Epic] Epic 40K--I played it

From: sauron1 <sauron1_at_...>
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 22:57:22 -0700

Andy Skinner wrote:

> My wife and I played the Sulfur river battle last night. First time
>
> to really use my Geohex stuff--looked pretty good, though the river
> was narrow. I used two HO scale train bridges. They are Warren
> truss bridges, by Atlas, and seemed about right size to me. I have
> to do something to their surfaces to make them not look like rail
> road tracks. They included some metal rails that I used as supports
>
> across the top.
>
> The game took a long time, but we were looking up a lot of stuff.
> It is definitely true that you can get in more turns in this game
> than the old one. I think this is good, and I wonder if it is
> mostly the ranges that affect this, or what.
>
> I wasn't crazy about the rules, though. It was very hard to explain
>
> Assaults and Firefights to my wife, and what effect the Whirlwind
> barrages had, and the difference between Anti-tank and normal FP
> shots. I think that lumping all the shots into FP was kinda
> boring--
> I don't think that was the main thing that slowed down the game
> before, and we enjoyed shooting at specific things more. Especially
>
> barrages--I would put a barrage over something in the back of the
> target detachment, it would add up that much FP, and then none of
> the hits would get to the barrage, because hits come off the front.
>
> I agree with making some things simpler. I think a lot of things
> getting lumped into groups, and having less exceptions is better.
> I just missed some things in that game.
>
> I didn't like firefights or assaults. For assaults, if being in
> base-to-base contact should be important, there should be more rules
>
> for applying hits, like each unit in contact rolling a die against
> one of the units in contact with it (the latter part being what is
> not in Epic 40K). But I wish Assaults and Firefights were lumped
> into one action, really, with base-to-base contact irrelevant.
> Also,
> the dice really overwhelmed the combat bonuses, I thought.
>
> War engines seemed very fast, being able to move twice. They get
> to move in the assault phase, even when not moving into close
> combat, right?
>
> I think Space Marine could have used some ideas from here. I like
> having movement, then shooting, then assault, with a second move
> (normal rates) in the assault phase. I'm not sure what I'd do
> for First Fire, but maybe just have two shooting phases and have
> them shoot first, maybe allow them to hold shooting until the
> assault phase.
>
> So my choices now are:
> * to give Epic 40K another chance, having the advantage of being a
> current GW game, increasing my chances of finding players;
> * go back to Space Marine, though I would like some changes;
> * hack my own rules up (probably Space Marine with the change of
> turn sequence mentioned above, maybe alternate implementations of
> units with exceptional rules), though finding players is hard;
> * try NetEpic (I'd like to see how that project is going,
> specifically what do they want to be different than Space Marine);
>
> * and Dirtside II. I've been threatening to go to that game for a
> long time, and have just postponed it because there are a few
> things that put me off. I find some things about infantry
> confusing, for instance.
>
> Oh, our game ended in a draw. We both really shot up each other's
> armies, and I think the battle might have ended either way had we
> continued. By the end of the 6th turn, neither of us had any units
> on either bridge (I had a blast marker and rolled a 1 twice in a
> row,
> so couldn't move to my bridge), she had a Revenant with one hit and
> some bikes, I had a bunch of Marines, their Rhinos, a Land Raider,
> and some Vindicators, but was on the wrong side of the river to
> bring that FP against her. We forgot a lot of stuff--placing blast
> markers in close assaults and firefights, using Fate cards (I could
> have used one to cancel hers, but forgot about it until we had
> already
> rerolled the close assault), etc. The main rules are IMO more
> complicated, so I might be happiest if we could get rid of the
> exceptions in the old rules and could tweak the sequence. If my
> wife continues to be my main opponent, we could use whatever rules
> I want to.
>
> I did like designing my army in more detail. I thought that was
> a lot of fun.
>
> andy
> askinner_at_...

 Sauron1 writes; I am in the same quandry as you are! I like the "fog of
war" and the better sequence of events and sort of the blast marker
approach,but detest the lumping if weapons and troop types.Please eather
post you ideas on a compromise you mentioned beteween old and new Epic
or send it to me at {sauron1_at_...} I am trying to get
several of the younger players in my club into epic,by giving out basic
troops and they like the variatins of weapons and skills.Thanks
sauron1
Received on Tue May 20 1997 - 05:57:22 UTC