So, I've recently figured out something that's been bothering me in Epic. And it involves cheap formations. Now, let's look at their pros and cons.

Disadvantages:
- Easy to break and kill.

Advantages:
- Cheap, losing one formation shouldn't hamper you too much.
- One rallied stand of jump infantry behind a hill can be just as or more important for objective grabbing/denial than that imperator titan.
- One extra activation for placing blast markers or even spearheading an engage, with or without support.

Sounds pretty balanced so far, don't you think? I certainly see that list a fair trade compared to their fragility. However, they have another advantage, which I really don't think is appropriate.

- Can be used to out-activate your opponent so your more expensive and important main units can do whatever they want, without the enemy having a possibility to react (not counting overwatch, which might not be a smart thing to do, depending on the battlefield and forces and other things).

Now, that I don't really see as fair. Every single activation-based game I've played (apart from Epic, obviously) has had some kind of mechanic for passing your turn, to prevent exactly this happening. They've ranged from simple to complex, explained to unexplained, but always there to preserve the balance, so those heavy hitters supported by the horde of rabble won't rain death on the smaller-activation army with impunity.

So, here's my idea. Every turn, whenever you have fewer activations left (including arriving spaceships and offboard aircraft) than your opponent, you can pass your turn. Cheap activations will still have all their benefits (apart from the extra one I brought up) and the army with fewer activations will still be at a disadvantage. The cheap activations can harass and annoy an opponent to the point where they have to do something about them and are obviously very useful for objectives, but they can't be used to let important activations have completely free reign over the battlefield anymore, unless the opponent lets them do that, of course. Would also make armies with few activations a bit more viable.

What do you think? Would that be good or bad for the game? Why and why not? Any big problems I've missed? I certainly would like to try it out sometime as a house rule at least.

I love BIG formations, but exactly that out-activation tells me not to use ´Uge Mobs. Without fear of out-activation I would run around with 4 or 5 Big formations instead of 7-9 formations of which some are just there to bring activations. I am not sure is this good or bad thing, I have always just thought it is part of epic, in good and bad.

But if I could pass my turn, I would definedly use it a lot. And run around with 4 or 5 Uge Formations.

_________________
Eradication of Earth's
Population loves Polaris

It ought to be the opposite, the fewer units to handle for command, the easier to get them up and running.

How about a +1 on activation for having less units?
"Yeah, you got more activations, but my units do their job."

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

What you are describing is the "popcorn" army which is deliberately made up of 1-3 medium sized formations with some punch, and a lot of low value stuff whose role is to out-activate the enemy while laying BMs for shooting etc. In practice you need to have at least 25% more formations to achieve this - but in the real world, army commanders are told they need something like a 3:2 advantage before starting a major engagement precisely to achieve the effect you describe.

It is recognised as a legitimate strategy but EPIC lists are generally designed to minimise this effect (with the possible exception of the Siegemasters), though you can try to do it if you like. However it relies on retaining the activation advantage by breaking (or destroying) a number of enemy formations at the end of each turn, which is often quite hard to achieve, especially if there is a lot of terrain to hide in.

Consequently, the idea of "passing" an activation is not such a good idea, especially as it can be abused (ignoring the question of how to phrase the wording - like when are you not allowed to "pass")

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

While I like Wisp's idea, I think the main problem is more like that odd single unit claiming objectives. Thus I have earlier proposed this idea that if objective is contested, if the other side is much bigger, then it can claim it (for certain limit). So if other side is over double the size of the other within 15cm (and there is less than say 4 units within 15cm in the enemy formations), then they claim the objective, it is not contested...

This way single units could not at least contest objectives populated by big enemy formation and the game would lose some of its 'millimeter precise placement of ZOCs to prevent enemy getting within 15cm of objective' which is not, IMO, that fun at all. Lone units would still be useful to lay BM, claim uncontested objectives and so on.

We ought to re-write allof it and get rid of all bugss, nocks and crannies.  

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

The counter to activation stall by small formations is concentrating on eliminating enemy activations and judicious use of Overwatch, but mostly the former.  Sure, the other player can get 2 decent activations for the price of a Leman Russ company.  However, if that Russ company breaks an enemy formation that hasn't activated, then that takes out the enemy's activation.  One "stall" activation, plus one activation removed by the Leman Russ's move means that the enemy lost 2 activations and a fair amount of material versus the Russ company using its one activation.

In my experience, anything up to about a 3:2 activation ratio is no problem.  Since the lower bound limit on average formation cost for an army is ~200 even for pretty extreme lists, an army with an average formation cost in the low 300s should be fine.

Also, really hardcore popcorn armies with very small average formation costs need certain traits to work at all and those usually have some weaknesses associated with them.  Experienced players can often work around a higher activation disadvantage if the opponent has been too extreme.

_________________
Neal

I'm curious, how do you think it could be abused?

While nealhunt's advice makes sense, it probably won't help in the first turn, unless you have some serious long ranged firepower and good firing lines. Of course, eldar tend to be good at this due to their move-shoot-move ability.

And making those kind of lists Nicodemus mentioned playable would certainly be a nice option.

OK, the point of the 'Popcorn' army (and indeed of tactics that are used to simulate it) is that it relies to a large extent on moving its stronger, but still delicate formations after the enemy threat to them has passed (ie the enemy has moved in that particular part of the battlefield). The obvious counter is for the smaller army to pass on moving until it reaches activation parity. The 'Popcorn' army has to avoid moving it's much weaker formations within strike range of its opponent, so fritters away these activations. When they reach activation parity, there is now a significant disparity in the actual strengths of the two armies - allowing the smaller, but now much stronger army to act with relative impunity. In effect, this is actually using the 'popcorn' army's extra activations against it, as ther is now a significant part that is effectively paralysed and which can be destroyed in detail.

Using Neal's excellent example as an illustration, the intention of the popcorn army is for smaller formation "A" to activate outside the threat of the Leman-Russ formation, which then normally has to activate. Popcorn "B" (and possibly "C") can now activate and move within the threat range of the L-R, possibly weakening or prepping it for a combined attack in the following turn.

Allowing the L-R to pass means that Popcorn "A" (and "B") have to stay outside the L-R threat range leaving the L-R free to position itself within range of "A" and/or "B" which it then destroys in the following turn. In doing this, it can ignore or minimise the threat of "C" which cannot really harm the L-R by itself.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

When they reach activation parity, there is now a significant disparity in the actual strengths of the two armies - allowing the smaller, but now much stronger army to act with relative impunity

To be honest I don't see the need for something like this it is up to the player with the lower activation count to look to even things up over first and second turn.

My experience with playing hoard armies against players with lower activation counts has been that a player quickly learns to adapt their play to take on the higher activation army.

I do have a question about a proposal to allow passing. Is this somethng that would be worked out once at the beginning of a game or every turn?

I would see it needing to be checked every turn as otherwise an unlucky (or poor) player with a higher number of activations would be steady penalised more and more as their activation count dropped allowing the smaller army to just soak up the smaller activations until they then need to activate. (A reverse Popcorn - Implodewheat   )

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

Well I see your point, but contend that this allows people to choose when to marshall and actually relieves some of the pressures. So, here is a proposal. Try this out and see what happens:-

Marines
11x scouts, upgrade 1x AT razorback: 175 each = 1925
4x Thunderbolts: 150 each = 600
1x Terminators: 325 each = 325 (BTS)
3x commanders to add: 50 points each = 150
total 3000 points

Imperial guard
4x Leman Russ: 650 each = 2600
4x hydra upgrade: 50 each = 200
1x tank sqdn upgrade: 200 each = 200 (to make a BTS)
total 3000 points
(you can rejig things slightly for an HQ company and the SC if you prefer, which then allows another IG formation - perhaps a Shadow Sword or BaneBlade?)

Current rules
Assuming the Marines keep their BTS off table for turn #1 and possibly turn #2 as well, the Marines end up with 11 spare activations in turn one which they use to break one on the Leman Russ formations in turn #1, repeated for turns #2 and #3 and mop up the objectives - so they have a very good chance of winning. This is the problem that this proposal is trying to resolve.

With passing activations
My prediction (assuming the marine player is equally bold) is an easy victory for the IG:-
The Marine player must still try to break each formation through BMs, so concentrates on one of the formations which waits until there are 5-6 BMs and then marshalls. At this point the marine player will then have great difficulty breaking that Leman Russ formation, and more importantly, the other unscathed LR formations can advance wiping out 2-3 Marine formations per turn. If the LR tanks keep close together to avoid clipping attacks, there is absolutely nothing the marine player can do to prevent IG winning handsomely.

But try it to prove me wrong.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

My two cents on the IG every day! :-)

Wisp:  There is actually an option to "pass" in the rules - Overwatch.  Perhaps that's more restrictive than you desire, but it provides the opportunity to defend without over-extending and to get the first shot in on the enemy if they decide to attack.

Really, there are tons of counters against the mega-activation army, with different tools for different forces.  An arty force will shred it, using the arty to "stall" as far as movement and break enemy formations at the same time.  A first turn SM drop pod army could gut one.  Long range fire, like 75cm Leman Russ and 60cm Soopagunz (which can flip templates on units out of range/LoS) are less effective than arty but work on the same principal.  OW can make a dent, as will any other area denial strategies.  Well-placed assaults will break formations and place BMs on the nearby allied formations. Aircraft tend to be effective because small formations often lack AA options, especially air assaults as the transport aircraft can often weather substantial AA.  Teleport deepstrikes can pick off the bigger formations and pull the teeth of the army.  Attrition forces can just soak up the damage and keep going to pounce in the following turn.

_________________
Neal