Re: FW: [Epic] deathstrikes/GAMESMANSHIP

From: Chris White <chris_at_...>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:58:30 -0700

At 04:56 PM 7/24/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>
>>> may seem to the E40K guys, I think they're toned down from what they
>>> were. Still unpleasant, but not a win-the-game-in-one-turn type thing
>>
>>> anymore.
>>
>>After reading your descriptions and feeling rather nauseous, I think
>>I'll be grateful that I never played my occasional IG opponent under
>>SM/TL. This guy hardly owns anything other than artillery,
>>deathstrikes and the occasional leman russ. I have to kid him
>>constantly to get him to bring out any infantry and then it's an
>>inquisitor lord... <bleagh> Anyway, my battles against him are becoming
>>more occasional as time goes on.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>- Erik
>
>Note the mentioned correction to the arty co #'s - it was still nasty
>though. The deathstrikes worked as advertised though.
> The IG aren't neccessarily unbalanced (in either version)
>but they certainly can be, and it seems like many people want to
>play them that way - "Troopers suck - I like tanks" etc. It happens
>some with eldar too, especially in SM/TL with "guardians suck -
>why would anyone ever take them?". It's not as bad with eldar, but
>it still bugs me. You take grunt troopers because they're the core
>of your army, the majority, and personally I think an IG force
>without troopers is under immediate suspicion, especially in
>your larger battles. This often comes up as the mark of a
>powergamer - "I want to win, pushing the limits of the rules,
>without regards to the fluff/background text". It would never even
>occur to me to take 60 Deathstrikes. That's just moronic. Even for
>a special scenario, it's ridiculous. Games, especially with a point
>system for buying troops, are based on the assumption of a
>"typical" army. Game balance goes out the window with a force
>like was mentioned before. If the only infantry in an IG force is
>the commander, I'd say they have a problem. If you're using
>500 pts and it's supposed to be an all tank force, OK. If you're
>playing 2000 points, I think it's abusive. Star Fleet Battles has
>had this discussion numerous times over the years, and I will
>point out the same things:
>1) If all you ever play with are the "best" units, then you are
>missing a lot of the game.
>2) Sometimes what you think is the "best" may not really
>turn out that way in a particular game or against a certain
>opponent.
>3) It's unrealistic to think that there are special, unique,
>or elite units in every battle. Sometimes it's grunts vs grunts.
>Special ought to be special.
>4) If you push a points system far enough, it will break down.
>Sure, 10 bloodthirsters in a unit will probably stomp anything
>it meets in HTH. What if you opponent takes all ranged attacks
>and shoots it before it gets into HTH? Same points, but the
>demons never had a chance. Are the two forces equal in
>effectiveness? No. You could spend all of your points on
>troops with no ranged attack, I spend mine on units with all
>ranged attacks. These are not balanced forces, even though
>they cost the same.
>
>Rant over (for now)
>
>
>
>Chris Miller
>

        A rant I agree with...

        When I was playing 40K I had two Land Raiders; one of my regular opponents
was starting a 'Nid army. Of course, I rolled right over him with my
ablative armor, etc., the first time we played.

        Now, don't get me wrong, I like to see 'Nid juices dripping from the
tracks as well as the next guy, but it just wasn't fun! So I held off on
the heavy cav until he
had something which could deal with it without unreasonable sacrifices of
'Stealers.

        We are getting together to hang out and have fun as well as win, after all.


                --> Christopher

        P.S. - Anyone fighting with Chaos out there?
Received on Thu Jul 24 1997 - 22:58:30 UTC