>>("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...
Actually, this is a _perfect_ example of what I was talking about.
Go through it sequentially:
1 I shoot my SAG at a phantom titans, and score a hit (the value
doesn't matter).
2 The eldar player rolls for his holo fields, and suceeds, so the
shot is converted into a miss.
3 Now, when a SAG misses, the snotlings will materialize around
the nearest unit within 5cm of where the shot lands. That in
the Warlords rulebook.
4 The shot landed on the phantom, because a "hit" was rolled on
deviation dice, so the shot will hit the nearest unit within
5 cm of the "point where the shot landed".
5 The nearest unit within 5cm of the point of impact will almost
always be the phantom, thus the snotlings will deviate back
onto the titan, effectively ignoring the holofields.
The point is not to debate how to resolve this paradox. The point
is that the _only_ way to resolve this situation is to create a new
rule the _only_ affects SAGs shooting at eldar titans, or to disregard
an existing rule (i.e. if you say the snotlings have no chance to hit
hit the phantom because they already missed once, that's creating a
new rule). This is case-in-point of the kind of annoying situtations
that could kill a half hour of playing time on a miniscule rules
question (how often to SAGs shoot at eldar titans?). And this is
but one of scores of rules question that can, and have, arisin in
this game.
>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"....
see above.
>>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.
>>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.
Only time will tell, but as things stand right now, I doubt it. The
question becomes whether GW will bury e40k under all the special rules
they buried SM/TL under, or whether they will maintain the vanilla
rules to a greater degree. WD 210 was a bad indicator on this point,
though, (2 new special rules).
>> 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.
Alright, take for example the response I got when I asked "how can
orks take out engines of Vaul?":
> ----> Well you pile your boyz into a skullhamma and move at triple
> charge range....D'oh!
>
> ...or you could approach under cover of a mekboy dragsta's deflektor
> field....D'oh!
>
> ....then move the mega-gargant over to him and dump some Nobz stands out
> on
> him in CC....D'oh
>
> ....and if you fire _enough_ traktor cannons at him...D'oh!
>
> ...Shokk attack guns on First fire do have unlimited range so...D'oh!
>
> ...Point a couple of magna-kannons his way and when he pops up...D'oh!
>
> ...Spleenrippas are pretty fast and have a decent hit chance & save
> mod....D'oh
I know that this was meant in humor, but it very clearly shows the
kind of strategic thinking that went into SM/TL. Countering an
enemy unit was a matter of unit selection, not table top maneuver.
This isn't a critism of SM/TL (I enjoyed this aspect of it), it's
just a difference. Personally, I prefer tactics that revolve
around pushing guys to the right spot of the table, but that's
just me, others might like a more "Magic: the Gathering" play-
counter-play style.
>> 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.
I have to admit, the orks lost less in the way of titan weaponry (we
had a pretty limited selection to begin with). But I can also say
that I only counted one-shot missles, big nasty guns and everything
else. I found the question of whether the opposing titan had a
Gatling Blaster vs. Laser Blaster vs. Vulcan MegaBolter to be
strategicall irrelivant.
>[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.
On the contrary, if you want to win a game, it should never come down
to winning a single CC by 1 point. A victory should be so decisive,
that luck doesn't enter it (except the inititative, but that's more
difficult to avoid). If it matters whether a squad of 5 vehicles has
a +1 or +2 CAF or a 5+ or 6+ save (and these are the differnces in
the light vehicles), then your strategy is not fundamentally sound
to begin with.
Hence the point, it doesn't matter which of the light ork vehicles
you take. If I'm doing my job right, I'll kick his butt no matter
what. If he's does his job right, then having that extra +1 CAF
on the warbuggies instead of trikes won't make a whit of difference.
David
Received on Sat Jul 19 1997 - 20:41:13 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:39 UTC