Actually I would say the exact opposite.

I don't play gunlines in any system. Maybe there's an inner Ork to me, but I like to play extremely aggressively (as people who've played Epic against me will know). This can work in Epic but it oddly enough makes holding troops in reserve to keep your own objectives difficult. I find the gunlines are the ones trying to do the third turn rush, not me. Whether with my airborne Inquisition or mechanised Chaos, I'm going to be on your Blitz by turn 2, one way or another.

No, no. The gunline will sit on overwatch or sustained fire, and then try and throw fast units on your objectives on turn 3.

As for playtesting, those of us who mistakenly assumed marching troops can't take objectives have effectively playtested this house rule already. I've played many, many games against Guard, Orks and Space Marines with my Inquisiton and AMTL forces and I preferred it to the real rules. It forces gunlines to mobilise earlier and both players to keep objectives in mind during turn 2.

It's news to me that marching formations can claim objectives, and I don't think I'll like it. (Will try it out, just in case)

Throwing out that people will storm off and leave a game system if they disagree with your preference for a rule was mature?

For me Marching objective claimers is a core game mechanic that can be used by any player with any army, and can be countered by any player with any army- it's very hard to cry unfair on that count. It's so very easy to counter too, but no, rather than counter it we need another special rule to compensate. We wouldn't want the opponent using tactics against us after all!

I personally think Indirect Fire should be removed, as it's damn unsporting...

That was sarcasm... Or maybe irony. Hard to tell the difference sometimes.

Yes, it's a core mechanism of the game, if you play it for the rules. I'm trying to show that it might be well to move EA away from rule-playing and into role-playing (if I'm allowed a pun).

It should at the very least not gain Sustained. Apart from that it was a low attempt at humour...   ...I guess?

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

Gentlemen, I think Mephiston mentioned it before. Remember that objectives and marching for them are part of the tournament scenario and not part of the epic core rules. If you like the tournament scenario but don't like marching for objectives then create you're own scenario. Based on the standard one, but with marching units only contesting objectives or whatever.

And agree with your opponent to play it.

Job done

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

Alansa speaks well.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Alansa has the right of it IF there was any other scenarios to play.
(No, those in the rule book isn't much of scenarios.)

But whatever. I'm still more concerned about the two no-brainers that Double and March represent. *out*

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

How is Double a no-brainer? In general, players try to force their opponent to Double as often as possible, since Double-firing tends to not cause any damage. Advances and Engages are decisive. Double is just maneuver. And the March disadvantages (no fire at all, no bms placed, no supporting fire, no flak) are real.

Err... you can invent any scenario you like - you do know that right?

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

It's hard to role-play a vast faceless army of hundreds...

If I want to role-play in 40k I'll look at Necromunda or even Inquisitor (or indeed Dark Heresy).

Epic works as a wargame, I have no interest in nerfing rules or tactics I don't like for 'role playing' sake, but you have every right in the forms of Scenarios and House Rules to invent you own and to play the game as you and your opponent wish. Trying to enforce such House Rules as official changes is likely to fail as the majority of Epic players actually like playing Epic.

That you consider Doubling a no-brainer doesn't really credit your game-playing ability. Doubling can often be a really bad idea, the instinct is to double a mechanised formation forward to get some shots off- in practice this often means you get a few rubbish shots off, then your opponent has less distance to cover to Sustain/Advance or even Engage your formation that's just offered itself up by Doubling forward.
Getting your opponent to Double, whilst your able to Sustain/Advance/Engage on the Doubled formations is the better idea- in this case Doubling definitely not being the No Brainer.

*Out*

Amen brother.

I was wondering why so many of us play this game...

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

You can 'roleplay' as much as you like with epic - using scenarios

you can even have triggered events and suchlike happening.

The tournament scenario is for errm... tournaments. In a tournament you need clearly defined winners and losers. This very fact makes a game a little more abstact than it might otherwise be. This is because only the result counts, not the story or what happens (though you can watch a story unfold before you eyes if have the imagination)

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

The Tournament scenario is abstract in another sense in that both armies have identical missions and both armies are of equal power/numbers/strength.

That's because it's a wargame, not war.

Yes that's right - because tournaments demand clear winners and losers, they have a tendency to promote such abstract things in a game.

You can play Epic as a wargame or a 'roleplay' - as you see fit

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

I'm sorry; I'm missing your point.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart