Hi all,

I love Epic but the one thing that has always bothered me is the mad rush for objectives on the 3rd (sometimes 4th) turn.

Turns one and two everything goes quite sensibly with unit moveing into strong postitions, then in turn three people try to deliver a big assault but then at the end of turn 3 all the small or resently rallied units make a mad dash 90cm accross the table and contest or capture all the obectives.

It doesn't look or feel right and is a really odd way to end a very stratigic game.

So I am going to start testing a small rules amendment -

"Units which march may not claim or contest objectives at the end of the turn in which they marched"

What do you guys think? Will this hamstring the slower armies too much or will it force players to plan ahead more and not rely on a mad rush at the end of the game?

I'd love to hear feedback from anyone who has tested this rule.

All comments welcome.

It's a common house rule.

However, I like marching onto objectives, as it takes the focus of the game away from solely killing the enemy, meaning that an order which allows no combat operations at all, not even supporting a firefight, can win the game for you. That's cool imo.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

If there was no mad dash, then there would be little reason to play assault forces. All you would need to do then is sit back with the biggest guns.

Unlike quite a few other games of gw, you can actually win in epic through shooting. No mad dash for objective points would only make this stronger

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

As a house rule for games that don't need to be completed in a set time I'm sure this would be fine.

Wouldn't want it as a change to the standard GT scenario.

+1

I have no problem with the rules as is (the need to secure objectives is one of my favourite parts of the game).

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

"the need to secure objectives is one of my favourite parts of the game"

"there would be little reason to play assault forces. All you would need to do then is sit back with the biggest guns. "

I think theres a bit of misunderstanding here. I'm not saying we should get rid of taking objectives, I love the victory mechanics in epic, they really set it apart from other games.

I'm saying objectives are too easy to claim. I've lost count of the number of times me or my oponant have marched a commisar in a chimera or a single assault marine stand from one of the board to the other at the last minute.

If anything this rule change would make using slow, shooting armies less viable as they would have to move than they currently do to be with in reach of objectives in time.

I'll just point out that they could do this only because the other player didn't secure that objective with one of their own formations.

Often they have, and this unit will contest it.

My main problem is that game flows really well and feels like an actual battle (which most wargames dont) until the last second when everyone jumps in thier transports and zips all over the place. Doesn't anyone else find this weird?

Maybe you need to come up with some alternative scenario to play? The GT scenario is designed for pickup/competitive play were an outcome is required in a fixed period of time and turns.

The Flames of War method would translate into a formation being on the objective at the start of the turn and remaining there (unbroken) until the end phase in order to control it. That would certainly make for a longer, and bloodier, game as formations throw themselves into the meatgrinder to contest.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

The object of fighting a battle is to win the battle.
The object of playing a scenario is to win the scenario.

Those things can clash.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

If you check the designer notes in the rule book you'll see players are encouraged to change anything that their group doesn't like stats/rules/objectives etc. This is usually done via house rules, some can
be really fun. If you do play a few games with any change to the objective grabbing krrp us informed of the outcome please.

Personally I like that part of the game, especially trying to stop my opponents from having stuff that can reach objectives by destroying their transports/high speed stuff or blocking routes (scouts are greeat at this) and keeping a "reserve" force of my own to grab or contest.

Agree on all counts w/ dptdexys. You can also use your contesting fms to move slightly forwards and spread out using their ZoC to prevent the enemy marchers getting to within 15cm of the objective. If the fm has a lot of units or are scouts they can literally encircle the objective. If there aren't enough in the fm, then they can at least waste enough of the enemy fm's move by forcing them to go around.

_________________

I like the meatgrinder point that's made above Ben (EdgarSan)...we should try the house rule out with two siege armies!

Other than that let's give it a go in our friendly's next time and see what happens :-)

I'm in the camp - like Edgarsan - of feeling that objective grab is unrealistic but need to see how it may affect the game by removing marching units ability to contest.

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army