P.C.Green wrote:
> My question is should I buy the old Epic (and if so do I get Space Marine
> or do I only need Titan Legions) or should I get Epic40k.
You're trying to decide which game your group will play? Is
everyone willing to play a game that is not "current" by the
company that made it? If so, fine.
I like some of each game. I like the variety of stats in the old
game better. A vehicle might have multiple weapons, each with:
* number of dice--how many shots it could take, to same or different
targets
* range
* to hit roll--how likely to hit
* save modifier--how likely to kill something big enough to have a save
Epic 40K has mostly:
* a single range value (not range for each weapon, as above)
* firepower--this figures into how many dice are rolled to check for
kills in the target
How likely something is to be killed is only related to the firing
weapon by how many chances it gets, from firepower. There are special
weapons which do things differently, but many things which had some
interesting combinations and tradeoffs between range/number of shots/
accuracy/damage potential are gone.
I like the different _stats_ for different units. I did not like
different _rules_ for different units.
On the other hand, E40K seems like it will play much more quickly.
This will be the deciding issue for me. I have had trouble getting
people to play a second time, after a first multi-hour experience.
My wife, very patient, is willing to play occasionally, but quicker
games will help this out. I never went over 4000 points (usually
less than 3000) in 2nd edition, because it would take too long. I
could use larger armies in Epic40K, I think.
> To help me answer this question I would be grateful if someone could explain
> the
> close combat system for Epic. I know it revolves aroud Close Assualt Factors but
> thats about it.
2nd edition had orders you assign to each detachment. (Detachments
were usually smaller than E40K ones, and not customizable.) Units
that were going to enter close combat got charge orders. During the
movement phase, they got to move twice their normal move and could
go into base-to-base contact with the enemy. Then there was First
Fire, where things that had First Fire orders (no move) could shoot,
including at enemy units that had just come into close combat with
them. (Units on Advance orders could not shoot at an enemy that
just charged across an open field at them. Units on charge don't
shoot.) Then in the Close Combat phase, each pair of enemies in
base-to-base contact roll 2 dice and add their Close Assault Factors
in. Whoever rolls highest wins, the other is destroyed. If a
unit has multiple enemies in contact, the second adds another d6,
the third another, etc. Then units on Advance orders (move and shoot)
could shoot, including at units that had won their CC and were no
longer in contact.
One problem was that whoever won initiative for the turn would have
a huge advantage in moving second. I think 2nd edition would be
much better if charging units moved their normal distance in the
movement phase and again in the CC phase, like in E40K. That would
have given more FF units a shot at them. (I'd be tempted to put
CC after Advance, 'cause I think any shooting ought to be able to
hit something running at you across the field. But this is a bigger
change.)
The reason I'll probably stick with E40K is that the things I like
in 2nd edition--picking out targets for shots, different stats, etc--
make the game longer. I have to admit that E40K is much quicker.
I'll still feel the need to tweak it some, though. I don't like
the way it is as easy to remove exactly 5 blast markers as it is to
remove none. (I know, a unit that has 2 blast markers is more likely
to lose them both than a unit with 4 is to lose all 4. But for that
unit with 4 blast markers, it is as easy to roll a 1 (-1=0) as it is
a 6 (-1=5).) I think it might feel better to remove the smaller of
two dice, rather than one die minus 1. But I haven't tried it yet.
You'd always remove one, and you might remove 6, but the number would
tend towards lower. (Average isn't much different.) The point of
all this was to remove the weird feeling of putting on blast markers
and seeing them all go away before they did anything next turn, and
then having a single blast marker and having it not go away.
andy
askinner_at_...
Received on Fri Jul 18 1997 - 13:50:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:39 UTC