RE: [Epic] Orders....

From: David Lado <lado_at_...>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 09:54:58 -0400 (EDT)

>>> EPIC/40K don't use the SM/TL order phase. It's a pity...
>>> I think it 's really a good idea that you don't know what your opponent
>>> want to do...
>>> Until the reveal order phase.....
>>
>> Well, the place orders/check initiative/reveal orders system of SM/TL
>>was good for simulating the confusion of battle... the problem was
>>that if you lost initiative for the turn, you could end up having your
>>tactics really messed up. Since you placed your orders before you knew
>>if you were moving first or second, your orders could often end up
>>defeating tactics, which in my opinion placed too much importance on
>>that single die roll for initiative.

I agree with this. I liked the orders system alot in SM/TL because
it forced players to think ahead and gave an advantage to players
that could form long-term strategies. It was benifical to design
a strategy that could work (or at least proceed) independent of
initiative.

That said, my second biggest pet pieve about SM/TL (after the
special rules) was that initiative had such a huge effect of the
game. One system I and others tried was to alternate the movement
of units like in the firing phases (or movement could proceed in
a random order using a card system). Both systems seemed to work
very well but had the disadvantages that it was another set of
rules to remember, it prolonged the game, and it basically
eliminated the effect of initiative (which was more than some
players wanted).

>> The E40K system lets you see when you're going to move before you
>>have to commit to a set of orders, which slightly lowers the penalty
>>for losing initiative. There are good and bad points to both systems;
>>I myself really don't like it when completely random factors like an
>>initiative roll interfere too much with tactics - others feel differently.
>>
>I agree with you about initive(We always placed orders after initiave.)
>This reduced the effect of it some. Of course now CC and FF depend on a
>sincle dice roll. This can give some weird results unless you massivly
>overpower your opponent. I've seen a side lose when it side has double
>the CC of the other and more Blast Markers. It's the sort of thing that
>just doesn't look right. In 2ed odditites of luck could happen, but they
>would only afffect one stand, i.e. over a number of close combats it
>tended to average out, and there was one CC per stand.

This effect doesn't bother me as much. I don't like being able to
mathmatically decide the outcome of a close assault before it begins.
I like the fact that a rare event can throw a monkey wrench in the
best laid plans (that's life), plus it allows for the "heroic stand" :).

Plus, the odds of an upset a fairly rare, if the attacker has a +2
on his opponent, then their is a 5/9 chance that either the attacker
will roll 5 or 6 (automatic win) or the defender will roll a 1 or
2 (automatic loss). I'm not very good with statistics, but I would
guess this comes out to a roughly a 20% chance of a favorable result
for the underdog. That's not too bad.

>Also, even right
>now initive is powerfull, especially in the assault and movement phases.
>Initiave is less important in shooting, because you alternate. I wish
>initive was not so powerfull. Because of the power of CC and FF, the
>side that attacks usually wins, if they know what they are doing. Then
>their opponent is broken, and can't do anything.

True. Maybe you could alternate moving units in the assault phase and
resolve everything as one giant scrum at the end of the phase (that
might be interesting :).

David
Received on Mon Jul 07 1997 - 13:54:58 UTC