| Author |
Message |
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: Aircraft Sniping in E:A |
| fuseboy |
|
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:20 pm
|
|
Replies: 60
Views: 16529
|
| Restricting the aircraft from stopping in any zones of control is too broad, since then you'd be able to use scouts to protect your anti-aircraft units from ground strikes.. hardly the effect you're trying to achieve.. presumably you'd want to relate the restriction to the target formation's zones o... |
|
 |
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: Aircraft Sniping in E:A |
| fuseboy |
|
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:18 am
|
|
Replies: 60
Views: 16529
|
| As others have pointed out, in rules design there's a significant trade-off when writing rules between making them easy to learn, and making them precise and clear enough that they have unambiguous effects in unforseen scenarios. Epic tends towards the former. The usual style is to describe wh... |
|
|
Forum: General Discussion Topic: Army Summaries |
| fuseboy |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:35 am
|
|
Replies: 23
Views: 6405
|
|
|
Forum: General Discussion Topic: 1st Annual Epic Tourney |
| fuseboy |
|
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:04 pm
|
|
Replies: 5
Views: 1776
|
| I can't see Epic as a core game. The tiny-scale games don't lend themselves to the kind of churn that the larger scale games do. At least, there are fewer dimensions. For one thing, per-model variability is necessarily fuzzed out in the rules, and variability for modelling's sake doesn't... |
|
|
Forum: NetEA Necrons Topic: Results from Battle Bunker |
| fuseboy |
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:54 pm
|
|
Replies: 23
Views: 7360
|
| On a slight tangent here, there's a few things to remember when translating 40k mechanics to Epic. Epic turns and distances are a lot larger than their 40k equivalents, so weapon performance over a 15-minute period is a more useful guide. Casualties represent units that can't fight, not necessarily ... |
|
|
Forum: General Discussion Topic: [Tourney] Another EPIC:A tournament in Oakville |
| fuseboy |
|
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:35 am
|
|
Replies: 16
Views: 4654
|
|
|
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: Space Marine List Critique, Please |
| fuseboy |
|
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 10:28 pm
|
|
Replies: 4
Views: 2028
|
| Thanks for the feedback; I made a couple of mistakes, though. I forgot to mention that there were Rhinos everywhere, and that I plan on a formation of whirlwinds: 1 LC 2 Tactical formations w/ Rhinos 2 Devastator formations w/ Rhinos, each w/ Hunter, one w/ SC 2 Terminator formations 1 Scout f... |
|
|
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: Space Marine List Critique, Please |
| fuseboy |
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:53 pm
|
|
Replies: 4
Views: 2028
|
| Here's my 3,000-point Codex SM list. It's a bit of a jump from what I usually play, but in swapping the Thunderhawk for a Landing Craft I was hoping to get a bit of flexibility. 1 LC 2 Tactical formations 2 Devastator formations, each w/ Hunter, one w/ SC 2 Terminator formations 1 Scout format... |
|
|
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: Campaign proposition |
| fuseboy |
|
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 7:35 pm
|
|
Replies: 53
Views: 11738
|
| As long as you assume that the secrecy is fairly permeable. |
|
|
Forum: General Science Fiction Wargames (10mm, 6mm and smaller) Topic: Heavy Gear |
| fuseboy |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:10 am
|
|
Replies: 21
Views: 10081
|
| Battletech's an interesting game. I got into it around the third edition after picking up the 3025 technical readout just because of how great it looked. The flavour text for the mechs was really fantastic. The quality of the rules are quite good. At its heart, the game isn't that ... |
|
|
Forum: General Science Fiction Wargames (10mm, 6mm and smaller) Topic: Combat Assault Vehicle |
| fuseboy |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:34 am
|
|
Replies: 12
Views: 4791
|
| I actually bought myself a few of their miniatures, back when there were only eight varieties or so. I like the sculpts, but some of mine were miscast; there were visible bubbles (as if they hadn't been centrifuged) and the metal was surprisingly brittle. Nevertheless, they're great-look... |
|
|
Forum: NetEA Tyranids Topic: Tyranid v6.1 |
| fuseboy |
|
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 4:40 pm
|
|
Replies: 82
Views: 17404
|
| There's a phrasing that conflicts with the rulebook; I think it's accidental. Quote Tyranid formations that lose an assault must still make a withdrawal move, and any units that end their move within 15cms of an enemy unit will be destroyed, but the formation itself is not broken. According to... |
|
|
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: Withdrawal from Assault and Pursuit |
| fuseboy |
|
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:50 am
|
|
Replies: 4
Views: 1364
|
| It's 'A', the literal interpretation. Why? That's what the rules say, as you state. I think it's a mistake to appeal to "logic" - and I'm not slamming GW. We're playing a game, not a simulation, and there are so many abstractions that it's easy to find a real-world rationale for p... |
|
|
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: Epic Campaign System |
| fuseboy |
|
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:01 am
|
|
Replies: 6
Views: 1465
|
| Yes, the problem is that in any game, some of the pieces have fun and others won't. Who wants to play the garrison of a formation of scouts getting hammered by 700 points of imperial guard artillery? What I always wanted in a pre-game is one that led to a checkers-like standoff everywhere, and... |
|
|
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: Possible exploitation of the Intermingled Rule? |
| fuseboy |
|
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:56 am
|
|
Replies: 17
Views: 4364
|
| Markconz' suggestion looks interesting, although the wording and timing needs to be thought through carefully. One way to do it would be: 1. Declare target formation and formations that are possibly intermingled. 2. Attacker moves. 3. Possibly intermingled formations which are within 15cm of an atta... |
|
|
| Sort by: |