What he said...!

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

Dangit, thought I'd gotten all the files back up after the Big Oops.

I'll make sure they're all up later today.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Okay, I *DID* get the files posted back up after the Big Oops!

Seems there's some *other* problem going on that's preventing attached .pdfs to be downloaded.  I've notified Cybershadow and we'll see what can be done.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Files are available again!

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Yay!
R>

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

Some thoughts from Bristol Winter Warmer.

This scenario seemed heavily in the attacker's favour; he seemed to get all the advantages.

It also seemed very unfair on some races if they took the defender role, such as Eldar, who cannot take advantage of the garrisoning, which is the only benefit of being the defender.

The attacker's goals seemed in general to be easier to achieve, for example only needing to hold two objectives to get a point as compared to three for the defender.

The reinforcements rule was not used as described, as it would have resulted in much of the defender's army arriving on turn 4, when the game would likely be over by turn 3.

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

The Eldar "No Garrisons" rule will apply to the Eldar for most Total War scenarios.  This is counter-balanced by them having a higher likelihood of being the "Attacker" in such scenarios.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

That's what i'd assumed after Chroma mentioned the Garrisons rule was the same as the GT scenario one.

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

Without the Attacker bonus though, Eldar (which ever variety) will be at a bit of a disadvantage.

So, all that will be cleared up!

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Well, in friendly play, not at all, since a scenario will probably be picked in an mutually agreeable manner or part of a campaign.

If such scenarios were adopted for competitive play, a page out of the Warmachine tournament rules would be taken where a player brings two different army lists for their race/faction and then may decide which to use once the scenario and opponent's race is known.  So an Attacker or Defender style army could be used as desired.

And, if a player really wants a challenge, it could be fun to take a weaker position and see if their generalship can see a way to victory.  

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

I want to refer people toTHIS Battle Report I did on Warseer while TacCom was down. It has a lot of discussion about the scenario itself, specifically the victory conditions.

The reason I am bringing this up again is that one of my friends, who, ironically, has a larger Epic collection than myself, just does NOT like the GT scenario, and has refused to play it. Fortunately, there are other options!

We will likely be playing this again next week, which brought to mind the balance issues that I feel exist with the attacker's objectives compared to the defender's. I was hoping Chroma has had a chance to think on some of these points.

With all THAT being said, I am currently in the process of translating the WFB General's Compendium into an Epic Map Campaign designed to work with Mighty Empires, etc. At some point there needs to be a way to determine which scenario to play, and Im hoping that there will be some help with Determiners in this supplement

What are his problems with it? IMO it is one of the strengths of the game, in that it has the best replayability of any of the basic GW scenarios.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

He hates that you can "play to the objective". His problem is that on turn 3, someone can "zoom zoom" and park on objectives and, assuming the objectives werent properly defended, you can pick up a win almost instantly.

Yes, he doesnt know all the rules as well as he should.
Yes, he builds crappy lists.
Yes, he's been given in-game primers on how to defend.

Doesnt matter. His mind is made up, which is a bummer. This is the best game I have played in years, and Turn 3 always brings sweat to my brow as I await this formation being broken which will allow that unit to zip in and score, and if I cant break that unit, what else do I have to throw at it, and if I still cant do it, can I last through turn 4 with what I have just committed?

LOVE IT!