Excerpts from Epic: 18-Jul-97 Re: [Epic] New to Epic by David
Lado_at_...
> >> Any other comments on the two systems would be apreciated but I understand
> >> that you've probably already had this discussion (sp?) and don't wan't to
> >> have repeat everything again.
> >
> > The basic rules of SM/TL were mucho simpler than
> >the rules for E40k. However, many of the units in the
> >older edition had their own set of special rules whereas
> >in E40k all the units are fairly vanilla.
>
> Just to throw in my $.02, I played SM/TL for about 3 years before
> 40k came out. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that e40k
> is a better _game_. The rules are smoother and the whole system
> is much more integrated, while SM/TL was a crazy patchwork of rules,
> suppliments, errata, house rules, and general frustration
I don't think it's quite *that* bad, but I do see your point (stated
later) that it does take a couple games with a group to get all the
rules you follow ironed out. Some things you just don't think of before
they happen... and some things, you don't want to mention 'cause it
would give away part of your army composition, for example....
>("okay,
> I shot my shokk attakk gun at the phantom titan, now what the hell
> do we do about the holofields?").
This has always been one that confused me, not because I don't know the
answer but because other people ask (asked) it so often. (Not SAGs in
particular, mind, just "do holo fields affect...?) In Renegades, it
states *very* clearly that holo fields are effective against anything
but a template weapon. SAGs don't have a template, therefore holo
fields are effective... the Gutbuster ball round (R.I.P.) has a
template, therefore it ignores holo fields. (I didn't say the rules made
*sense* in all cases....)
> The flip side of that is that all the special rules and general
> confusion also meant each army had a very individual feel, that
> is lost to a degree in e40k.
"To a degree"? Wow... I feel that's a large understatement. Not so
much for the Imperium, especially now with the Marine stuff in WD, but
the Aspect losses, the Ork Clan losses (<sniff> I always did like dem
Snakebites), and, most important IMO, Titan weapon losses. I can't say
how *pissed* I was when I learned the Titan weapons were reduced to
eight for the Imperium... I spent a lot of (spare) time planning how to
build a stand-alone Titan Legion, and it all just went out the window.
>Only the orks had shokk attack guns
> and dragsta fields, only the eldar had waveserpents. The inter-
> action of these special units caused no end of rules questions
> and debates (literally. They still continue).
Not in particular... I think the Doomweaver question is more by force of
habit these days, and I can't really think of any other unresolved (IMO)
debate. Of course, you have to note that "IMO"....
>Despite Argo's
> previous assertion, there is no way this game could ever have
> possibly been flawless. It's like a house built on quicksand, you
> can plaster over the walls and make it livable, but it is
> fundamentally unsound and no superficial makeover will change
> that.
Superficial, yeah, but if they'd actually been willing to *change* some
rulings (ie, redefine where a T-hawk flies) and make clarifications on a
couple issues in White Dwarf (ie Doomweaver) then there wouldn't be any
questions. Reprint the rulebooks, maybe, if you want to make more
money, or just release something akin to the Space MArine Battles book
but with rules updates, and you're fairly set.
>To get an idea of what I'm talking about, visit Allan
> McCarley's home page and check out the errata for the old epic.
> Keep in mind that this does not include 2 seperate official Q&As
> that came out in WD 173 and 175.
...and there's now an errata for E40K. GW hardly made it perfect
(though I don't think anyone has said they did), and I'm willing to bet
that, given as much time as we had to submit questions for Epic, we
could submit just as many questions concerning E40K.
> In a way, SM/TL had a much more WH40k feel. Alot of the games
> revolved around picking the right weapon to screw your opponent
> (and winning initiative).
Winning initiative was very important, I'll grant you. I do like the
E40K method of handling that, picking counters out of a can for each
phase. But picking the right weapon to screw your opponent? I
disagree, at least assuming one isn't *trying* to do that. I've had a
lot of fun taking off-the-wall units (Termites, say) and trying to make
them useful, as well as just trying to take a balanced force. Numerous
times I've made up a mini-scenario to design the force for, regardless
of whether my opponent knew it or not. And I've purposefully restricted
the use of some of my weapons (like, say, the Overlord Company) if my
gaming group has found it too powerful.
[snip]
> For example, an eldar phantom titan can reduce a warlord titan to
> a pile of slag with a single volley (2x pulsars, 2x laser wings),
> while having these great holofields and high armor saves that will
> turn aside almost any fire. Unfortunately, the holofields don't
> work against barrage weapons, so when you fight eldar, always
> bring your artillery. And so the game goes. The strategy revolves
> more around having the right unit in the right situation.
...ah, OK, I do see your point here. Yes, you do need to be prepared
for pretty much anything you opponent can field. Playing Squats as I
did, it wasn't too hard to build a core force that could face most other
armies and do fairly well. The Imperium might have it a bit harder...
but I'm not out to design lists for armies I don't have. ^_^
> Also, alot of the "variation" of units came down to picking
> whether you want to fire 2 dice hitting on a 5+ at 50 cm, or one
> die hitting on a 4+ at 75 cm.
I like this variation in Titan weaponry (Gatling Blasters vs. Laser
Blasters vs. Vulcan MegaBolters, forex), but on individual vehicles it
doesn't make much of a difference unless you play a 'sit & shoot' force.
[snip]
> Kult of Speed. I had 5 vehicles that all did the same thing:
> went fast and got shot (instead of the nobz :). Minor variations
> in CAF and armor made absolutely no difference in the outcome of
> the game. Whether or not I brought the Kult of speed made a
> huge difference, but not the actual unit composition.
Hmm... if all they do is get shot at, then get the ones with better
armour. If they actually get to shoot, then get the ones with the best
guns to do the most damage early on. IF you're going to try & get into
close combat, then take speedy units with high CAF. I'd say they are
differences; it's just how you think of the units. Sure, in several
games the differences might not matter, but there may well be times you
(say) lost a CC against something by 1 point... that's when you wished
you had the unit with the higher CAF. Stuff like that.
> E40k is much more like a traditional napoleonics game. There is
> less unit variation, but maneuver is much more important. Many
> of the special rules were condensed into general unit types.
> For example, Pulsa rokkits, wave serpents, and doomweavers are
> all now lumped together as disrupt weapons, while before they were
> each governed by a unique set of speical rules. However, if you
> step back and ask "what is the net effect of using these weapons?"
> then in truth, they performed very similar roles (except the wave
> serpent was a transport): you fired them into massed troop
> formations and troops in terrain to try to break them up and
> hopefully kill some.
I'll have to take issue with that on Wave Serpents; the best use I've
seen out of them is to *not* fire off the shields, and get some CC
artists into play, then block a flank of the combat so some things can't
shoot at the CC artists. It works very well, even against Squats with
Overlords flying high. (Though blocking the Overlords with Eldritch
Storms doesn't hurt the Eldar....)
> In my old group, we divided SM/TL games into three phases:
> choosing your army, deploying your army, and everything
> else. That is, selecting the army was more important
> than what you actually did with on the board.
Interesting... I usually just picked my army while we were walking to
where we'd set up the army, or right after we got there. I certainly
never agonized over the decision....
>But having the
> right units was only usefull if you put it in the right spot,
> because you can't afford to spend 1-2 turns of a 3 turn game
> redeploying a unit. E40k is more slanted towards the table
> top maneuver aspect. Choosing your army is still very important,
> but not as critical.
Different focus, I guess... I've always thought maneuver was, at least,
initially important. Call me biased here, since I do play Squats, but I
tended to try & be fairly mobile, to get my troops into positions from
which we could defend, or move forward safely. I've usually used
combonations of advance & charge orders to leapfrog troops up the board,
while trying to maintain cover. (Cover, in our games, isn't usually too
hard... I think we've always used more cover than others on this list.
Try dumping all the buildings from first edition Space Marine, second
edition Space Marine and the Imperial buildings from TL onto *half* your
board, and then play... it becomes *much* more intersting. Oh, but
don't forget to put some terrain down on the other half, too.... ^_- )
> They're both excellent games, but I would personally opt for e40k,
> if for no other reason than because you will constantly be looking
> for progressively scarcer support for SM/TL.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you here. Witness my case, for
example... I'm still not entirely certain why I bought the E40K box,
but....
Later,
Aaron Teske
Mithramuse+_at_...
Squat Leader, Den'Len Fetch
Received on Fri Jul 18 1997 - 22:28:42 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:39 UTC