|
Did anyonse else find the rules changes in Firepower 1 (pg 12-14) to be, well... A bit rubbish?
When I first read them, I was instantly sold. Then I tested them out and found most of them to not add anything to the game and even, in several cases, ruin the intended feel of the game...
AT Shots: Any time you change the point value of units throughout the Armies Book, it is going to be frustrating (also, they misused the word "hence" in their explanation). The only really overpowered aspect of the Anti Tank rules is how they use Super Heavy Weapon targeting... So why not just say they follow the normal targeting restrictions of regular attacks and hit the closest stand that they can affect? Do that and they are largely in line with everything else for their point value. Heck, you could just count AT as a special ability (although this might make it too weak). Either way, there is no need to rewrite the point costs for four of the five armies in the game and add in brand new targeting rules that no other unit in the game has ever had.
Bunker Objectives: This waters down objective-hunting in a game that is otherwise all about scenarios... Why? Players should be encouraged to try to accomplish their missions instead of turning every game into a free for all. If bunkers are worth more than other objectives, then they will also be defended more enthusiastically by the opponent (and considering bunkers are the only objective that can "fight back," I don't think they are much better). In reality, the rule makes very little difference (-3.5 morale on average vs -5), makes no sense logically (why would a bunker be worth a variable amount anyway?), adds unnecessary randomness and reduces the tactical feel of the game.
Vortex Missiles: I take the last sentence to be errata, not a rules change, as it doesn't make sense that the weapon would cause death ray "hits" (after all why distinguish between types of hits?). However, the idea of limiting them to Titans is absurd. The Deathstrike Missile Launcher is a cool unit and reasonably balanced point-wise, as is the Ordinatus. Making a special class of weapons for these two units is ridiculous and completely unnecessary (as it is functionally identical anyway... 1d6 AT attacks or death ray attacks will almost always have the same result for ground units). It is a game of Epic... Everybody should be very well used to the idea of swathes of models being destroyed all at once.
Drop Pods: Why? Changes extremely little. Skip it.
Walkers: No. No no no no no. Are you telling me a Space Marine Dreadnought can move 15cm in the movement phase and then charge 30cm into combat in the assault phase? With those pudgy little legs? Are you joking? A dreadnought should only move 45cm in a turn if it is strapped to the back of a Vortex Missile (see above).
Flak: This rule says "using flak vehicles seems to be a waste of time unless you're protecting an immobile target like an artillery battery." So? This is how anti-air assets are actually used in real world deployment. I understand the desire to produce an invincible steel curtain around your entire army as they rumble across the battlefield, but there is absolutely no need to weaken air power in the game, no historical justification for this and not even a good game design reason. Choosing where to setup your air-defense zones is part of the fun of strategy... You can't have everything, so you have to work around your limited resources and capabilities. There is not a strong enough reason for this rules change.
Super Heavy Tanks: Again, no. Not only does this involve scribbling over the datafaxes in the Armies Book, but it is completely unnecessary. Super Heavy Tanks have a Damage Capacity of 4. The majority of them will be destroyed without ever having suffered a critical hit. For those that do take a critical hit, they have a close to 50% chance of not taking catastrophic damage. Those few that do take catastrophic damage are statistically likely to be on their last hit point anyway. This rule is not necessary.
Ambush Scenario: I cannot speak to this one much as I haven't played the ambush scenario enough to understand if it is truly unbalanced... I do find the idea of placing those objectives kind of an odd solution, but I'll refrain from comment until I give it a fair shot. So... Maybe ok?
War Engine Orders: This is the big one... The fact that war engines didn't use orders is a significant part of what made them feel so different from regular ground-pounders on the battlefield. Ground detachments are responsive, flexible, situationally aware and quick to maneuver. Titans should be slow, methodical and inexorable. They rumble slowly but surely across the battlefield, operating on their own sense of time and urgency. They should never be able to march. They cannot go on "overwatch" to increase their accuracy. They lay their onerous ordnance against their enemies, they do not care what is or is not underfoot. They just rumble onward, slow and steady. Not only do these modifications add an entire page of rules that significant modify the normal order system, they positively assassinate the cumbersome, ponderous and aloof feel of the mighty Titans.
Does anyone else just prefer E40k "as written"? A lot of these tweaks (in Firepower 1 and elsewhere as well) just feel to me like a game designer monkeying around with a masterpiece in order to reinvent the wheel. After all, what most people say they like about E40k is that it is a "complete" game... Indeed, in my experience, it plays best right out of the box!
|
