Is that right? I thought infantry units get either their CC or FF attacks depending on whether they are in BTB or not, never both, and never one of each if they have more than one attack...?

One tip on how you should do the tactical/devestator attack.

In the previous turn the tacticals have moved within position to do a combined attack. Now it's the next turn and  it's the marines players go (due to their high strategy rating marines usually get first go). But before they attack with the tacticals they move some devestators in, from miles away! They double 60cm across the board get out of their razorbacks within 15cm of the gargant and shoot at. This might knock down a few power fields, but more importantly it places a blast marker on the gargant. This is important for assault resolution - as we see later. Not only that but the devs are now in position for supporting fire when the tacticals attack! The devs effectively attack twice, and now they only need 3+ to hit!
Now, instead of handing play back to the ork player, the marines retain the initiative. Being marines they are very good at doing this, indeed marines need to do this sort of thing all the time. Passing the check the tacticals assault - and the rest is down to the dice... Now, when we come to the assault resolution we see why the dev move helps. The tacticals went in without BMS so they get +1, the gargant has more blast markers than the marines, so that's another +1 to the marines. +2 is a big deal and can really help the marines against the odds. If the devs hadn't layed down that BM before hand then the marines wouldn't have got the +2 bonus.

Errm, perhaps this is demonstrating how interesting assaults can be, and how to do them well, rather than how useful warengines are. But you'll agree it's exciting stuff which you want to illustrate to the BoLS readers? Perhaps at least it shows that if you want to win assaults against large warengines you have to do it cleverly if you want a chance to win. And that in turn shows the power of these large engines?

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

GR00V3R , like Alansa says, I would illustrate the Devastators being moved into support range, causing a BM to be placed (and perhaps stripping a shield or two). Suggested changes are highlighted.

On the other text there is a minor discrepancy on the Ork CC hit allocation; normal hits are assigned and resolved before any MW hits, so the three marine stands in CC die before the lifta-droppa squishes them further

Also, I think that you may have miscounted the number of shields stripped from the GG given the assault stripped '4' and the Devastators another '3'.

Finally, I would revise the resolution text purely for clarity as follows Marines '9' -- 4 (the roll) + 1 (for the casualty inflicted) + 1 (for the inspiring Chaplain) + 1 (more units than the Gargant has DC) +1 (no blast markers) + 1 (enemy has more blast markers)
Orks '10' -- 6 (the roll) + 4 (casualties inflicted)

The Ork player has won by one, so the two Tactical marines formations are broken and must withdraw and the Devastators also get a BM for being in support range of an assault that failed, while the Great Gargant takes a single blast marker for losing 1DC. Also, the assault resolution score difference of one translates to one additional blast marker on the already-broken marines. For other armies, this would mean an additional casualty, but for marines with the They Shall Know No Fear special rule, this number is halved (and rounded down if appropriate), so no additional casualties are suffered.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

While I applaud your efforts, I'm not sure that an article focusing on the minutae of the assault rules is going to get many people interested in epic.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

I think that's both correct and incorrect. I think the idea is illustrate how exciting assaults in epic are: because of all the tactical possibilities one can bring into play, how different units (such as large warengines) are used and how they affect the outcome . But as you suggest, the details shouldn't detract from the story, rather help to explain it.

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

A fair call.

Worth mentioning that what I've posted is not the entire article, but rather the portion of it that highlights the effectiveness of the Great Gargant in an assault.

My initial draft of this section was simpler, but the reduced detail made it effectively meaningless--I could have just as well written "The Great Gargant charges the formation of Tactical marines and wipes it out", and it would have been just as useful.  

Having said that, if the section is getting bogged down in the rules to the extent that you think it's just a crap read, let me know. I can take the criticism. (I'm a professional writer, so I pretty much have people telling me what I write is crap all day...I have a pretty tough skin as a result.)  

I'd like to say I think in general you're doing the right thing. And the tricks are important though exact mechanical workthroughs are only there to prove the tricks.

Assaults in epic, are one of the key things that differentiate epic from many other wargames.

As you have noted, it might seem a bit strange to some attacking a war engine with infantry (especially to 40k players). In one of your previous BoLS articles, a reader commented that in a IG V SM battle, all those Baneblades and Shadowswords would have won the game automatically if we where talking 40k apocolypse. Epic realistically demonstrates that tanks, from leman russes, to baneblades and even larger are Extremely vulnerable to infantry assaults. Especially from the likes of Space Marines. On the biggest hardest stuff like great gargants are virtually invulnerable to anything (other than ranks of volcano cannons and batteries of Deathstrike missles)

Even in our example, because of the cleverness of the marine assault, the gargant could easily have been 'broken' even if it wasn't destroyed. This is crucial: if it had have been broken, it wouldn't be able to bring it's awesome gunz into play for the rest of the turn... (and beyond if it doesn't rally). This is almost as good as destroying it outright!

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

I think we're on the same page: earlier in the article, I discuss what an infantry assault against a war engine represents to provide something of a "sanity check".

I like your point about how close the marines came to breaking the Great Gargant, though. Even though it wouldn't have been destroyed, it's effectiveness would have been reduced to near zero as the likelihood of rallying would be pretty low.

Nice one. I'll use that. Thanks.  

Yes.

The marines targeted the gargant. They prepared the assault at the end of turn one. Executed at at the start of turn two. Had they won, the gargant would have been virtually useless for the entirety of the turn - the *most* pivotal turn in the game. 850 points made useless when it's really needed. A risk worth taking perhaps.

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

Considering this is your 5th article in a series I think now is a good time to add some detail of the games mechanics so readers can have a little feel for what makes epic, well epic!

I'm enjoying the series on BoLS and from the comments so are a lot of other people.

Your previous articles have been well written and seem to have gained some support from the 'non-Epic' community, so I would suggest they are pitched at about the right level. However, in discussing War Engines you are inevitably starting to move away from the rule mechanics into the tactics for how to handle them (which should also add a degree of excitement to the article in its own right). Equally, this also adds a whole new level of complexity and acompanying detail. So, perhaps you can drop some of the detail covered in the past articles (like activation details etc) in the interest of conveying the gist of the activities of each of the formations.

Given the neccesity of at least some detail, perhaps you could use formating to clarify the text. For example, leave the main storyline in normal font while the details are indented in italics etc.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Just to be picky, the gargant's 'effectiveness would have reduced to near zero' simply because it would have been broken (while the gargant survived, the shock of the assault means all the grot crew would have been all over the place, and unable to operate the weapons, the kommand structure within the gargant is in pieces and needs time to recover).

The fact that chance of rally (which is a looong time away at the end of the turn) is not brilliant just makes things even worse; If it fails then it's useless in turn 3 too! Not least because it can't be used to claim or even contest objectives even if it does finally manages to rally at the end of turn 3. Still, the onboard Warlord should help, if he hasn't used his supreme commander re-roll already. (Ork Player: Do I use my re-roll now because that stoopid Kult of Speed won't commit to an assault and I *really* need it to, or do I save it to help ensure the gargant rallies. Oh Mork! Decisions Decisions!. The tension has cause me to chew my hand off!)

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

Just remember that a Great Gargant gets +2 to its Rally tests in the End Phase as it counts as 12 units for the "Power of the WAAAGH!!!" Special Rule, regardless of how much damage it's taken.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?