KTG17 wrote:
I could see that, but honestly, infantry units (at least prior to SM2, and definitely in 40k, were made up of squads with not just basic weapons, but assault weapons and support weapons too. So I just think that even though it might say 'Bolters', its more like a abstract name for a number of weapons. Take Chaos Marines for example... All they are armed with is a missile launcher? No they all would have bolters too, but for the sake of simplifying the stat line, they just have one weapon listed. And they needed it... Chaos didn't have a lot of long range options, but in truth the average Chaos marine squad is similar to a Space Marine Tactical squad, who also have missile launchers.
Which is why I preferred the first edition rules. They actually stated what support weapons a squad carried and that would relate to the armor save modifier. Of course that was supported by the whole mechanics behind that rule set. SM2 when a different way. One after all these years I'm not totally "sold" on.
Quote:
But I can see how 30 Imperial Guardsmen would overwhelm a Warlord, or Ork Clans doing the same. But there are a lot of other units on the board... I would try to screen a titan.
It doesn't really work this way in practice, since the titan is such a large model visible from most vantage points, it was just too easy to sacrifice a low cost detachment brought for solely that purpose. Take into consideration infantry could hide in certain terrain and thus gain cover bonuses making shooting at them to avoid their purpose an exercise in futility.
The only real solution under those mechanics was the -1 TSM for downing shields. Granted its not the best solution, but it worked and stopped the abuse.
Quote:
And the flip side to this, I have had Space Marine detachments sitting on an objective with their Rhinos, who wouldn't be able to do a thing if a Warlord walked up. In one of the games I posted earlier, I had a Warlord who was constantly being battered down by Tactical stands as he tried to take shots at an enemy Warlord, and the constant loss, then repairs of the void shield was pretty exciting. In TL, none of that would have happened.
Had the SM charged the titan under SM2 rules, they would have taken it out, since SM2 doesn't provide for titan defense against infantry swarms. In the old days the second most popular exploit was rhino/cheap infantry swarms with one "elite" unit in the mix.
According to stock SM2 rules, the CC resolution is done by the the whim of the outnumbering player (infantry player), so you'd sacrifice those rhinos and other stuff then with with the extra dice an a unit with better CAF as the last roller.
Needless to say it was quite a shock how much titans were "gimped" relative to AT1. Soon no body wanted to field titans under the stock rules, too many points easily trumped by severely low cost methods.
Quote:
Yeah AT/SM1 is a real mess if you go outside either game set. Do you dabble in Codex Titanicus? Do you stick to the earlier rules in White Dwarf prior to Codex? Do you use the later army lists? I just explain to people that they were experimental times, and had SM2/TL not come along, there would have been something like a Codex2, which I would have loved, as it would/should have had expanded Eldar rules, and that was the only disappointment I had in those days. But if you were to get into that system today, without having a clear idea what went on, I imagine the average gamer would think it was a real mess. Which it was. But I loved it.
I'm gearing up to do just that. Clear up, clean and update those rules. As time goes by I find myself increasingly liking the original mechanics and ways they interacted. I recently spent a whole week going through the entirety of the rules and have formulated an outline to make the attempt.
As much as I like SM2, I believe a cleaned up AT1+SM1 would work better, have more tactical options and have an all around "feel" of epic I'm looking for.
It will be another "gargantuan" task. But I've done stuff like that before.
Quote:
Yeah totally agree. I forgot to address them, but honestly I never like the rules for them, and with getting back into the game, I have just decided to ignore them. I think they make good VTOL rules which is fine, but I think Epic40k did a better job with air support than SM2/TL, even though it was probably the most abstract part of the game. And worse in SM2/TL, how some of the units 'face up' to the point where they can't target ground units??? Come on. Some of the best anti infantry and armor weapons were originally designed to shoot aircraft.
Agreed. HORRID flyer rules. Net epic Platinum has some good ideas on that front though.
Quote:
I loved the complexity of AT/SM1, but everything had the same complexity. In TL, the rules for the Imperator and Mega Gargant are so ridiculous that we spent so much time of the game reading and making sure we were doing things right. Everything else took 5 seconds to sort out. Granted it had been a long time since I played, but I even remember how the Imperator dragged things out back when we played in the early days, and never once did one die either.
Problem with those two units was that they introduced a whole "mini-game" with those two titans. The AT1 rules were complex, but they all operated under the same rules.
Also, they over compensated the weakness of titans in SM2 and made those two way too powerful for the power scale of the game. In essence every other titan was made obsolete by their appearance.
Once you gave 2d6 armor saves to titans that made them "building" tough. Leaving all others with the standard 1d6 armor save made the Imperator TOO GOOD.
Quote:
I am okay with this. As I said above, I think SM2 just simplified the stat line, and in some cases, just gave a name just to give it a name. Its kind of like Firepower ratings in Epic40k. Does it matter what the weapon is? Or just its effectiveness? And the one thing I guess I could appreciate would be some units being more effective with similar weapons than others. In AT/SM1, the bolter was a bolter and everyone who had it used it the same, which is fine, as I expect any competent user to use it decently. However, it kind of robs each army of a little flavor. Space Marines should be more effective with it, orks not as much.
That's a good point. I did this with my Heresy rules. Where the weapon efficiency was dictated by the weapon user,not the weapon itself.
SM2 did this a little clumsily. I would have been nice to have standard weapon list and under each army list give the differences to hit and saves for the users. It would have saved some space.
Quote:
I agree. I probably appreciate the SM2 box set now than at any other point during the whole time I have been in Epic. I was always in a hurry to bust out the sexier and more powerful units, which typically meant blowing by many basic units. Now I am realizing how much fun there is in the more basic units, and how a Land Raider actually means something at the level. I've started to expand on what I have to fill in what I don't have that they made rules for in that set.
Which btw reminds me of something. I stumbled upon these two images on BoardgameGeek:
and at first I thought, cool, this guy just built up his army based on what came in the box set, plus a few things. Then a moment later I realized he had basically only expanded on them to be able to play all of the re-fight scenarios in the Epic 40k Battles book. It hit me like a bolt of lightning. Its kind of the same thing I did with SM2. I realized I had bought so much Epic stuff for Epic 40k, that I feel like I have lost vision of the game sort of. And since I have to provide mostly everything every time I play, I tend to use units that I like or are worth something. Even though Epic 40k only includes Space Marines and Orks, the variety of the units/models is excellent. So I did the same thing this guy did with my extra Epic 40k set, and that's what me and my friend are going to hit next. Just try out Epic 40k within the constraints of what mostly came in that set.
Your talking to the wrong guy about model constraints....
Jesting aside, I agree you can have very nice battles with the "basics". One thing I always wished for was some kind of system for "rarity". In real battles all you had were basic units, so those that came in the boxed set were those most like to be available.
Of course that is no good for the selling of miniatures, so I know why GW didn't do that.
Quote:
This has made me look at a lot of what I have collected over the years. I love the building and painting aspect of it, but I realize I have gone overboard on a lot of things, and in all honesty can have fun games building around the core box sets. 40k 2nd edition? 20 Marines, 20 Orks, 40 Grots, card Dreadnought. Boring right? Who wants to play with those models? Well, add a few characters, metal Dreadnought, and a Warbuggy, and its a decent game. I think the more exotic and complex units really hurt the game, and I don't like flipping through rules at game time, so I have realized that its better for me to just stay close to what the game originally included, and far easier to set up and play. And cheaper too! I am a huge for of Dark Vengeance for that reason.
Well if you think you've gone overboard I hesitate to think what you think I have done with my collection.
Primarch