Couldn't agree more...
The reason I play Epic is for fun, not just to win =
through exploiting the rules better than my opponent. I have probably lost =
more battles than I have won, but at the end of the day I can truly say tha=
t I enjoyed every game...win or lose.
ALL of my armies have a far larger p=
roportion of infantry than anything else, not because they are tactically b=
etter but for two simple reasons:
1) It is more realistic
2) They look gre=
at on the tabletop and isn't that what it is all about?...huge sweeping 40K=
armies clashing in Epic scale. Sure there have been some fun 40K scenarios=
based around armour vs armour but by far the majority involve infantry vs =
infantry with the occasional support vehicle. By the time you scale this in=
to Epic IMHO an army made up entirely of Artillery or SHW's is simply unrea=
listic and to be perfectly honest *dull*.
Carl Woodrow
Gryphonne IV - Gene=
seed
http://freespace.virgin.net/carl.woodrow/epic/
-----Original Message=
-----
From: Philip Troy Routley [SMTP:ptr320_at_...]
Sent: Frid=
ay, July 25, 1997 12:52
To: space-marine_at_...
Subject: Re: FW: [Epic] =
deathstrikes
I certainly agree with most of what you ranted about, but I t=
hink there are
further considerations to what is being fielded. For exampl=
e, on a desert
planet you can expect the IG to have a much higher proportio=
n of tanks to
infantry then in an agro world or death world where the infan=
try have cover
- compare desert storm to vietnam. Likewise, a forge world =
would likely be
armour-heavy, while a hive world with its teeming multitude=
s would have a
lot more infantry then tanks.
In my Tallarn army, I intend =
on having infantry, but they will all be
bought as support for IG armour de=
ts. - the reason for this is that if you
are building an 'infantry' detach=
ment with a lot of armour, it is cheaper
to do it that way because you don'=
t need all those command groups.
Troy
>>
>>> may seem to the E40K guys, =
I think they're toned down from what they
>>> were. Still unpleasant, but n=
ot 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 hard=
ly owns anything other than artillery,
>>deathstrikes and the occasional le=
man russ. I have to kid him
>>constantly to get him to bring out any infan=
try and then it's an
>>inquisitor lord... <bleagh> Anyway, my battles again=
st him are becoming
>>more occasional as time goes on.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>-=
Erik
>
>Note the mentioned correction to the arty co #'s - it was still na=
sty
>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 s=
uck - 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 b=
ad 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 ju=
st moronic. Even for
>a special scenario, it's ridiculous. Games, especiall=
y 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 me=
ntioned 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 a=
n 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 t=
he "best" units, then you are
>missing a lot of the game.
>2) Sometimes wha=
t 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 th=
ere are special, unique,
>or elite units in every battle. Sometimes it's gr=
unts vs grunts.
>Special ought to be special.
>4) If you push a points syst=
em 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 ra=
nged 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 spen=
d mine on units with all
>ranged attacks. These are not balanced forces, ev=
en though
>they cost the same.
>
>Rant over (for now)
>
>
>
>Chris Miller
- application/ms-tnef attachment: stored
Received on Fri Jul 25 1997 - 19:55:59 UTC