Tactical Command :: View topic - SM vs. Epic Rule Engine

Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

SM vs. Epic Rule Engine http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=173	Page 1 of 1

Author:	nealhunt [ Wed May 07, 2003 3:48 pm ]
Post subject:	SM vs. Epic Rule Engine
I realize Netepic might be a beter board for this thread, but... I'm curious as to why some of you guys like the SM/TL rule engine so much more than the Epic set up. I can understand the desire for lots of nifty, cool units that were absent in Epic's release. However, those could have been written in Epic with house rules (and many were). I really don't get it. I found the SM rules to bog down rapidly. There was little opportunity for a variety of tactics. When there was, it was due primarily to some extreme force selection. For example, a friend took 9 falcon hosts in several games, which works out to falcons spaced exactly 6cm apart in virtually the entire deployment zone of a 4x8 board, and put everyone on first fire, using HQ units to snag objectives. Different, but still mind-numbingly dull. The thing I really disliked, is that there was no way to drive someone back short of decimation. Because of that, it became very WWI, line up and shoot across no-man's land until the CC units charge across. It was very static. So, maybe a better question is, how are you guys playing that it's possible to do things like turn flanks, rout an enemy formation, etc.?

Author:	primarch [ Wed May 07, 2003 4:27 pm ]
Post subject:	SM vs. Epic Rule Engine
Hi! I really don't get it. I found the SM rules to bog down rapidly. There was little opportunity for a variety of tactics. When there was, it was due primarily to some extreme force selection. For example, a friend took 9 falcon hosts in several games, which works out to falcons spaced exactly 6cm apart in virtually the entire deployment zone of a 4x8 board, and put everyone on first fire, using HQ units to snag objectives. Different, but still mind-numbingly dull.

Abuse is common in any system and the examples you point out are well known to me. They are controlled by enforcing WYSIWYG, you want an all bloodletter army, you better have the required amount of figs, same for anything else. Once you enforce that the "windrider host/spirit host/bloodletter/falcon host armies become very rare. Its heavy handed but it saves grief and it keeps the munchkins at bay.

The HQ "snag" is a common ploy and netepic resolved it by changing the targetting rules. HQ's only get the benefit of not being targeted IF they are close to troops of the same pinning class, meaning you cannot mix an HQ with say falcons and have the opponent fire at a closer falcon, they are onviously different. The other is that ANY unit within objectives or structuresmof ANY type are fair game to shoot at regardless of proximity. This problem is non-exisitant in netepic with these changes.

Although this may be topic for another thread, but extreme selection, in my experience, ALWAYS lose to the player with the babalnced force, providing he is experienced enough. Your example of the falcon host is EXTREMELY easy to defeat with a non-cheese selection. We can start a different thread for this if there is sufficient curiousity.

The basic SM engine is very simple, much more so than epic40k, the problem is people confuse the large amount of detailed units with a complex game mechanic. Close combat is a case in point. In SM you roll 2d6 add a modifier and thats it, if you win the other guy is dead. IF you gang up on one unit you get extra dice to simulate the numerical superiority. Compare that to epic40k's mechanic of adding values, referencing a table, and then rolling dice for each unit, rather cumbersone. What SM suffered from is to many rules added without thought of impact on the remainder of the system, the we have tried to remedy in net epic.

I must also point out that net epic uses alternating activation during the movement phase (its not the original you move everything then I do of SM), coupled with fog of war (you DONT reveal your orders untilt the unit acts) has added whole new strata of tactical decisions (hmm, should I charge those troops that haven't moved yet, or will I be mowed down if they happen to be on first fire...hmmm...).

Netepic has also added variant setups and in the current version scenarios, so as to give players more options. PArt of the original games problem is that setup was always the same and the same amount of objectives. One fun variant is to reduce the amount of objectives to half the normal amount. It has some very fun consequences (i.e. bloodbaths, more manuevers).

The "push-back" in close combat is definately missing and a functional system to add to it has not been made. This is a shortcoming of the system, most definately.

Turning flanks and such as you mentioned is fairly frequent in the games I have played, using fast moving vehicles to drive deep, encircle and pound groups of troops piecemeal. I have always seen comments on SM's "static" nature by proponents of the later systems, but in my experience that is more player dependent. As in any game as people get acquianted with the rules they get stuck in certain stereotypical game plays like the ones you mentioned above, once the other players counter it it is never used again. Of course if play is not that frequentg then this behavior can persist for a long time.

Routing can be done a number of ways using some of the special powers available to units. A fear casuing unit can charge to cause a check first then followed by another to get the rout effect.

One thing you didn't mention which I think is sorely absent in SM/netepic is suppression rules, but alas, none that have passed scrutiny or play test have survived.

Nice topic Neal!

Primarch

Author:	nealhunt [ Wed May 07, 2003 5:20 pm ]
Post subject:	SM vs. Epic Rule Engine
Well, it certainly sounds as if NetEpic fixed a lot of the problems I had with SM/TL. However, I would characterize restructuring of the turn sequence (both movement and revealing orders) as a major game mechanic/engine change. At that point, we're not talking about SM vs. Epic, imho. Your post does confirm that everyone else had the same problems with SM that I did. What (aside from the lack of diverse units/weapons) was the big drawback(s) with Epic? I am also curious as to how you would beat the falcons without knowing in advance that is what he is taking. The time I played him I had a chaos horde that was cut to ribbons before they got close.

Author:	primarch [ Wed May 07, 2003 9:19 pm ]
Post subject:	SM vs. Epic Rule Engine
Hi! Well, it certainly sounds as if NetEpic fixed a lot of the problems I had with SM/TL. However, I would characterize restructuring of the turn sequence (both movement and revealing orders) as a major game mechanic/engine change. At that point, we're not talking about SM vs. Epic, imho.

No arguement there, as i have stated on our mailing list and otehr forums, I dont play SM/TL any more, I play netepic. Most dismiss it as the same game, but as you point out, once you make some changes in the core mechanics, the essence of the game changes. While these are some changes, there are many, many more that impact the game the same way, so I try to make clear what system I am refering too, since SM, as GW wrote it has its problems. These problems were later compounded by poorly thought rules. If you ever played SM out of the box, none of the supplements, them its an easy "bug-free" game, more so than epic40k, once you add the suplements the problems begin, no question.

What (aside from the lack of diverse units/weapons) was the big drawback(s) with Epic?

The main one was the close combat system, its slow and the results aren't any better than under SM. I dont like calculating an assault factor, rolling dice then corss-referencing a table then rolling more dice to determine casualties. Too cumbersome. Under SM, 2d6 + CAF and your either dead or your not, cant beat that.

Blast markers, I like the CONCEPT, but greatly dislike the rule mechanics. The way they could inhibit titans and other great machines wa infuriating. IMO these units should be immune to it. You dont use a derringer to shoot an elephant. Perhaps a happy compromise was to limit affect only from certain weapons of true titan stopping power.

No differentiation between AP/AT, I HATE THAT. Everything is firepower, or like our list owner used to say "gretchen killing terminators syndrome". Which means, since all firepower is the same units that really shouldn't be able to harm some units (thus grethen vs. terminators) can happen under epic40k. I dont like that. I am aware of the heavy weapon rules, but that is insufficient and abviously an "after thought rule". Then again this falls under the lack of diverse weapons rants.

The above point has an offshoot that it also applies to armor, all armor is the same in epic40k, not like SM where armor saves made a clear distinction between infantry and armored units.

Those are the ones I can remember, I used to have a longer rant back then....

One question you didn't ask is what I LIKE about epic40k (oh, the shock!

)

I thought the flyer rules rocked the house and the "skill" upgrades like making a unit "hero" or other such things are very cool! So cool, I used them in Heresy II. So you see, hell can freeze over and primarch can say something good about epic40k. :;):

I am also curious as to how you would beat the falcons without knowing in advance that is what he is taking. The time I played him I had a chaos horde that was cut to ribbons before they got close.[QUOTE]

OKay, I have always maintained, if you know the ins and outs of the game system a balanced game force will win out over cheese. The standing challenge at my old store was that I would let my opponent build my army and let him cheese out his. Most of the time, I'd show him that tactics were better than cheese.

Mind you some armies are better than others to prepare for the "unforeseen", but it can be done with all.

My choice for "pick-up games" with people I have never played before (thus I always anticiapte cheese) are space marines. Depending on the points I will bring:

One tactical company who will deploy via the drop pod special card.

1 or two battle companies depending on the points available. Most ride in rhinos some in T-hawks (1 or 2).

For support I usually bring some tarantulas, whirlwinds or land raiders, of course depeneding on points played.

I usually bring one titan as fire support, the most common being two war hounds with plasma blast guns and turbo lasers.

As you can see its pretty generic, I did take a whole army of devastators or whole armies of T-hawk transported troops. It a moderated mix of the most common things available. The trick is what to do with them.

1. Most armies are vulnerable to what I call "baseline disruption". This is the ability to place you units in his starting point as quickly as possible. This will not win the game for you, but unless your foe is very disciplined he will be distracted enough to not focus on the real danger of your plan. This is accomplished by thedrop pods. You drop them ALL, first turn as close to his table edge as you can. You MUST concentrate the drop at his point of largest concentration or equivalent. A unit a pod lands on takes a -3 save modifer hit, so that means falcons save on a 5+, not too good. The whirlwind is a killer, 10cm range, -2 modifier and since you landed most likely behind or besides them an extra -1 or -2 (saves of 6+ or none!). Unload your tactical troops and charge, preferable from behind (no first fire outside of weapon arc!). With this alone you have pinned a sizable front of the opponent, he now has to decide to concentrate fire to this threat (and ignore the main assault) or ignore its rear threat and take casualties. Remember the break point is increased in drop pods so your tacticals have staying power.

2. Swoop and scoop. With your few T-hawks you can do one of two things, transport you devastators (Yes, I said Devastators) ON ADVANCE ORDERS into the very terrain or buildings those falcons were going to use against you and fire at them while you have cover and they do not. Or you could transport your assault detachments in and pin more Falcons.

3. Main assualt.The remainder of you army advances to take objectives and rapidly deploy forward. Since one and two has either destroyed/pinned or otherwise "entertained" those nasty falcons this usually goes unimpeded. Remember you will outnumber the falcon only army with infantry so you can easily pinn him down.

This works the best versus eldar regardless of composition, it can be countered, but it takes practice. This can be used versus other armies too, IG is very vulnerable to this assault.

Thats all you really need to do, the amount of "one turn knock outs" are high, I have never seen a cheese "all falcon army" survive beyond two turns if you are unlucky.

You can do it with chaos FAR easier, but that will be another post.

Primarch

Author:	primarch [ Wed May 07, 2003 9:22 pm ]
Post subject:	SM vs. Epic Rule Engine
Hi! Oops! Didn't cut off the quotes where I should have so there are more responses in the quote box. Primarch

Author:	Mojarn Piett [ Thu May 08, 2003 8:09 am ]
Post subject:	SM vs. Epic Rule Engine
I made a set of suppression rules for Net Epic, which IMO were quite nice. They can be found in Incoming 9 in case anybody is interested. As of yet, nobody has sent any playtest data so I don't know whether they work in practice or not.

Author:	nealhunt [ Thu May 08, 2003 3:33 pm ]
Post subject:	SM vs. Epic Rule Engine
Primarch: I agree that SMs are particularly well-suited for dispatching Eldar, just like Eldar are particularly adept at destroying chaos. However, I disagree that your force is a "balanced" force. 1-2 companies in Thawks, and 1-2 companis in drop pods is virtually all of your non-titan units dropping in from orbit. I consider 3000 points of virtual teleportation to be extreme. I don't think it's "beardy" or "cheesy" as it fits the fluff and generally makes sense, but it is still extreme. I think the SM army was broken for that very reason. When I had a company's worth of detachments run off the board by bloodclaws, another company's worth decimated by the same, and a company's worth of forces destroyed by drop pod company, all with miniscule damage to the SMs and before I moved, I realized it was bad. As I said, a couple detachments in Thawks and a company in drop pods is not what I would consider cheesy, but it is devastating and impossible to guard against nonetheless. Personally, I believe that even with alternating movement, there would be very little that would stop a marine player from destroying several times the number of points paid before any sort of reaction could be mounted. Not seeing orders might help, but the marines could just as easily pick units they can pin, or wait until a unit moves to assault it. Dang. I had forgotten how much I hated marines... Incidentally, the SM vs. Eldar and the Eldar vs. Chaos were exceptions to the 2 out of 3 initiatives rule. They just won. Period. But that's still not fun.

Author:	primarch [ Thu May 08, 2003 6:17 pm ]
Post subject:	SM vs. Epic Rule Engine
Hi! However, I disagree that your force is a "balanced" force. 1-2 companies in Thawks, and 1-2 companis in drop pods is virtually all of your non-titan units dropping in from orbit. I consider 3000 points of virtual teleportation to be extreme. I don't think it's "beardy" or "cheesy" as it fits the fluff and generally makes sense, but it is still extreme.

Hmm?! I think you misunderstood me, that's ONE tactical company with one drop pod special card, that only 750 points, the drop pods are free since you lose the rhinos from your tactical company for it (standard SM rules). Its one or two T-hawks, not companies, thats 100 points for both and the detachments it will carry are paid for in the cost of the battle companies you buy as you main body. Therefore you "teleporting" forces dont reach 1000 points. Thats pretty reasonable or even small depending on how many points you play. The rest of you army is infantry some support guns and maybe a titan. Thats a pretty vanilla force since only one third of it or less are rapid deployment.

I think the SM army was broken for that very reason. When I had a company's worth of detachments run off the board by bloodclaws, another company's worth decimated by the same, and a company's worth of forces destroyed by drop pod company, all with miniscule damage to the SMs and before I moved, I realized it was bad. As I said, a couple detachments in Thawks and a company in drop pods is not what I would consider cheesy, but it is devastating and impossible to guard against nonetheless.

Nope, quite possible to guard against and actually quite easy with the use of AA guns and mobile reserve. Most people deploy in long lines to cover as much of the front as they can, which is a mistake (a real bad one for squats). To defend from the swoop and scoop all you need is too deploy in "packets". These are small self sufficient groups of troops composed of companies or detachments. IN the eldars case all they needed to do is divide thier falcons in groups of 2-3 detachments and add one firestorm. In additon have one jet bike squadron which you deploy at baseline. The Firestorms will on average destroy several pods and or T-hawks, their -2 modifier guarantees it and this doesn't even count fire from additional firestorms nearby where overlapping firezones can cause great harm. Any units that land and deploy are then engaged by jetbikes to ensure the falcons or other units survival. Swoop and scoop became RARE after players learned this counter tactic.

Personally, I believe that even with alternating movement, there would be very little that would stop a marine player from destroying several times the number of points paid before any sort of reaction could be mounted. Not seeing orders might help, but the marines could just as easily pick units they can pin, or wait until a unit moves to assault it.

It only happens if you dont know how to defend against it. At the beginning when epic was played at my store SM were favorites, along with the eldar (winder rider armies back up by aspect warriors, no guardians). After intensive gaming tactics like the one mentioned above showed how simple to defend against some of these cheese tactics were. After that, there were less SM/Eldar players and more varied army selection evolved.

Incidentally, the SM vs. Eldar and the Eldar vs. Chaos were exceptions to the 2 out of 3 initiatives rule. They just won. Period. But that's still not fun.

Initiative was definitely a problem, not because of the rule itself but its combination with moving "everything" first then the other player. That made it "too good". But to be frank, with experienced players it became a moot issue, because you made plans counting on LOSING inititiative and if you happened to win then your plan would be easier to execute.

The point is Neal, we have been having a discussion on TACTICS, you mention a certain way players may play and I can come up with a simple generic solution to counter. Thats why so many people love SM, the combination of tactics and counter tactics is what keeps us there. Granted there are those who "get stuck" in the same routines and army selections, but with some thought and knowledge of the rules you can figure a way around them. Of course all rules have problems, none are bug free, but it also depends on your tastes on what you will tolerate and what you will not.

One of the intersting things in the SM vs. Epic40k debate is that each rule set actual appeals to an entirely different set of epic gamer, they emphasis different things. Thats okay, variety is the spice of life as they say, but there is no "objective" critera why one thing is "better" than the other only subjective ones.

Heck, I dont think I'll ever understand why anyone would play anything but old old epic, but your probably thinking why would anyone play old epic when epic40k or epic A is so much better.

Paradoxes of life.

Primarch

Author:	nealhunt [ Thu May 08, 2003 9:23 pm ]
Post subject:	SM vs. Epic Rule Engine
>> Therefore you "teleporting" forces dont reach 1000 points. 750 points in drop pods 350 points for detachment (250 deploying) in Thawk (100) Another 350 if you go with 2 That's 1450. Admittedly less than the 2 companies I thought you meant (2850). >> Swoop and scoop became RARE after players learned this counter tactic. Admittedly, most of my SM play and the two tournaments I played in were pre-flak rules (ca 1991-1993). Counter Thawks and drop pods without using flak and I will be heartily impressed. It was dicey before, but after the Space Wolves junk came out, there was no point in playing with SM forces because even someone playing, say, Dark Angels, would take a detachment of blood claws (or two or three) as allies. Also a problem in the pre-flier days was combined SM-IG forces. Cheap IG Hvy companies and artillery that were difficult to attack because of the marines. >> The point is Neal, we have been having a discussion on TACTICS, Which I really didn't want to do, so I guess I shouldn't have asked. I don't remember flak being nearly as effective as you claim, though I was happy with it at the time. I seem to recall it was a significant improvement, but still left a problem. Anyway, I can't really argue it almost 10 years after I last played it. Though I don't remember enough about the flier rules to argue it, I remember there being something I found very poor about them. Did Netepic change that, too? At this point, I would probably give NetEpic a try, but just the thought of SM/TL still gives me a bad taste in my mouth.

Author:	primarch [ Fri May 09, 2003 12:48 am ]
Post subject:	SM vs. Epic Rule Engine
Hi! 750 points in drop pods 350 points for detachment (250 deploying) in Thawk (100) Another 350 if you go with 2 That's 1450. Admittedly less than the 2 companies I thought you meant (2850).

I wasn't counting the two T-hawk detachments since they are bought as battle companies, but the breakdown would be about that much.

Admittedly, most of my SM play and the two tournaments I played in were pre-flak rules (ca 1991-1993). Counter Thawks and drop pods without using flak and I will be heartily impressed. It was dicey before, but after the Space Wolves junk came out, there was no point in playing with SM forces because even someone playing, say, Dark Angels, would take a detachment of blood claws (or two or three) as allies.

Also a problem in the pre-flier days was combined SM-IG forces. Cheap IG Hvy companies and artillery that were difficult to attack because of the marines.

Flak weapons eliminate the abuses of "swoop and scoop" for sure and made combined arms more important. You can counter it without flak weapons, but admittedly the armies get pretty cheesy to do this.

In net epic allies are not allowed as a standard rule. It was definitely cheesy to combine SM/IG it made a way too good army. On the other hand it was very entertaining to play against it to see if you could beat it.

I don't remember flak being nearly as effective as you claim, though I was happy with it at the time. I seem to recall it was a significant improvement, but still left a problem. Anyway, I can't really argue it almost 10 years after I last played it.

You may remember mostly IG flak which had a lower to hit value, but made up for it in many attack dice. The full detachment gave you 12 attack dice, not bad. Firestorms were the best 4+ to hit, -2 modifier and 2 attack dice each, very effective. It most certainly transformed the game and eliminated the death from above syndrome so many players liked to abuse.

Though I don't remember enough about the flier rules to argue it, I remember there being something I found very poor about them. Did Netepic change that, too?

Netepic has gone full circle on the issue of fliers. We have gone from real involved rules to the current real simple ones. I gather from playtest data and general opinions that the simpler approach is better. They are somewhat closer to what the original rules were but it clears up who can engage fliers as well as who can fire at them. It works pretty good.

At this point, I would probably give NetEpic a try, but just the thought of SM/TL still gives me a bad taste in my mouth.

Well, if you didn't like SM, perhaps netepic is not your cup of tea, but it is a different experience from "straight" SM. If you do try it out let me know, input is always appreciated.

Primarch

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/