Excerpts from Epic: 19-Jul-97 Re: [Epic] New to Epic by David
Lado_at_...
[firing SAGs at Phantom Titans]
> 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).
ie, hit on the scatter dice. Right.
> 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.
Wrong. Only when the scatter dice come up with an arrow do snotlings
appear within 5 cm of the target. In this case, the snotlings just
plain missed.
[snip points 4 & 5]
> 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).
Actually, it isn't; see above, and re-read the Warlords rulebook. I've
found that a lot of the rules questions can be answered by a careful
re-read, i.e. "does it actually say what I think it says?" Many times,
it doesn't. (I've had that happen to me on a couple occations as well,
though I can't recall any off the top of my head.) The thing to
remember is, *it doesn't always make sense*. Sure, it seems reasonable
that the snotlings would, if the holofields caused them to miss, reapper
within 5 cm and try to wrap themselves around the Phantom again, but
they don't. They just vanish. If you want flavortext, I suppose they
could kill each other when htey're grabbing at the (illusory) Phantom,
or something... but it really doesn't matter.
> >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.
Actually, I wouldn't mind hearing some of the others.... ^_^
[snicker-snack]
> >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?":
[snip the list of Ork units effectively removed from E40K]
> 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.
Oh, I don't know about that. Piling the boys into something that gets a
triple charge move sounds like maneuver... OK, it is a special unit, but
that's one of the things the Orks had a lot of.
My problem with you using that list as an example is that many of the
units listed (like the Dragsta, SAG, and Spleenrippa) were common Ork
units. Used a unit or two per (small) battle, they weren't any more
cheesy than anything else... like, say, using a unit of engines of Vaul.
Now, taking 28 SAGs as someone said he went up against is another
story... but then what would Orks do if an Eldar player in E40K took an
army of Engines of Vaul against him? (Actually, there probably is a
tactic against that, but I don't really know either list.) If the Orks
are in trouble, then E40K is just as "cheesy" as Epic was in terms of
unit selection, at least in that case.
Taking a mix of units, special or not, in Epic was (at least to me & my
gaming group) a way of life. Wan't cheesy, and if you happened to need
a unit to face off against a specific enemy unit, it was usually more of
a convenience than a necessity. For example, Orks could shoot a lot of
Battlecannon at my Squat SHVs and kill them, but it was a lot easier to
take a Gargant and use ball rounds. That is, after all, partially what
the ball round was designed to do.
> 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,
Not really... are you sure you just aren't getting to like the shorter
weapon ranges? In Epic, it wasn't too hard to get units that could fire
across half the board, if not the whole board (like the Goliath
Mega-Cannon). This is severely cut back in E40K, which (I think) gives
it more of the "Napoleonics" feel people keep attributing to it: the
troops have to get a lot closer together to fire at each other.
Maybe you should try some Epic games with the shorter ranges and see how
it feels?
>others might like a more "Magic: the Gathering" play-
> counter-play style.
...um, I'm not quite sure how you'd do this, at least inside one battle,
but if you're talking between multiple battles I guess there could be a
kind of "rock-paper-scissors" feel to it. I.e., "I took a bunch of SHVs
last time, so this time my opponent will probably take a counter... so
let's take not take any SHVs!" Basically, outthinking your opponent in
unit selection before the game. <shrug> Yeah, it happens, but I bet it
happens within E40K, too.
[snip]
> 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).
Hmm, interesting desire there, for extremely decisive victories... I've
seen many Epic battles that were very close, where a couple points of
CAF might have made a difference.
>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.
Oh, I dunno, if you're intending to get into close combat with a certain
unit I'd really rather take the variants which are better in close
combat, y'know? I'm not saying that a point of CAF should be a
strategy, but that taking advantage of the differences in your units,
and making plans around those differences, is a viable strategy.
I am trying to talk overall feel of the battle here; I'm not
concentrating on a single CC between two bikes, say. If a unit of 10...
oh, hell, bikes has a +2 CAF instead of a +1 CAF, however, they they
would do somewhat better in close combat. Apply that kind of thinking
across your army, and you should fare better than if you just toss out
units willy-nilly.
Aaron Teske
Mithramuse+_at_...
Received on Sun Jul 20 1997 - 06:21:22 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:39 UTC