"Epic 40,000 War Engines" Topic
7 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the 6mm Sci-Fi Message Board
Areas of InterestScience Fiction
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleAnother day, another succulent.
Featured Profile ArticleA really big Silent Death battle.
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Andy Skinner | 16 Feb 2016 7:27 a.m. PST |
I'm looking for those who play / played Epic 40,000. Firepower issue 1 had an article where they said that the Imperial and Ork super heavy tanks weren't worth the points because they were so fragile. Without changing the points, they proposed a new table for critical hits. The changes were: 1) Changed results so that Catastrophic Damage happened on 11+ (on 2d6) instead of 7+. 2) Removed all the bonus damage (+1/+2 became +0) 3) Changed the specific effects (and made them not differ between the Imperial and Ork ones). The first two are major reductions in vulnerability. The article did not mention the Eldar Engines of Vaul. These things have a similar critical table to the original Ork and Imperial ones. If you play or played Epic 40K, did you notice the problem this article was addressing? Did you welcome the change and use it? Do you think it should apply to the Eldar WEs, too? I'd be OK with the Eldar WEs being a bit more fragile, but this is a big difference. The points are similar for them as well. They do have mobility, but I think they need something in addition. Should they just use the same table? Actually, I kinda miss having variety in these tables, and I'm not sure I'd zero out all the extra damage. But the catastrophic damage on 7+ for critical hits seems a bit much. What do you think? andy |
Weasel | 16 Feb 2016 8:38 a.m. PST |
We only ever used super heavy tanks once or twice, for much the same reasons discussed. The same number of points in tanks were usually a better deal. We never did use the alternate rules, we had switched to NetEpic pretty early on. |
Legion 4 | 16 Feb 2016 9:33 a.m. PST |
Go the Tac Cmd site … link For ALL your Epic and 6mm sci-if needs … |
Andy Skinner | 16 Feb 2016 11:31 a.m. PST |
Legion 4, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but in this case it is not helpful. I posted there first, and have gotten no response. I was going to include a link here, but it seems to be refusing connection at the moment. At least I got one helpful response here. andy |
Legion 4 | 16 Feb 2016 1:47 p.m. PST |
Sorry … I do have that issue. But since we don't play that version of Epic, I figured someone on Tac Cmd still did. But I think most have moved to Epic A. Which many like because of the Activation rules/system. Being an old time war gamers. We added that to SM1. Based some other board wargames we had played. It only took GW 3 more iterations of Epic before they realized Activation is the best way to go. |
Andy Skinner | 16 Feb 2016 2:22 p.m. PST |
Here's the link for the Tactical Command thread. It has a forum for Epic 40K, so I started there. link I was pulling for activation a long time ago. Since then, I was swayed by someone (I think Allen McCarley, to dredge up a name from way back in my brain) saying that they thought the feel of a huge army was better when they move all together. So I think Epic 40K had a great balance for varying initiative over phases and alternating shooting. andy |
Legion 4 | 16 Feb 2016 4:36 p.m. PST |
I understand. We just like activation, it almost simulates things going on at the same time. Not one guy sitting there while the guys moves and shoots … |
|