Complaining that the embark/disembark rules aren't realistic is like complaining that horses (Knights) in Chess couldn't possibly jump over a castle (Rook).  

Some things are just mechanical.  Many of these rules work in a general sense and specific arguments for (and against) them can be made using a myriad of 'real life' explanations.  A classic example is that units on overwatch receive 'cover'.  It makes no sense to me but it makes sense to somebody else (I believe I went 12 rounds with Neal on this years ago).  At the end of the day, I shrug it off as a game mechanic.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

You should try Strip Epic:Armageddon some time

Given the pool of players I have to associate with, you might have single handedly ruined this game for me.  

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Hey, I love my massages and three course dinners.    In my command tent there is always a good record spinning, excellent cigars and some brandy (after the feature movie, of course).

On the "strategic" note, I would like to add that any table-top simulation of warfare have to apply abstraction since there is no (to my knowledge) system where both players act simultaneously with all their units. I find "taking turns" a far more unrealistic deal (even though I find the alternating activations to be better than Player 1 moves and shoots with entire army/Player 2 does the same etc) than different embark/disembark conceptualizations.

In the example at hand, you would be much more content with the rules if you thought of "Advance" as:

- You are ordered to embark in your transports and move with caution to coordinates X,Y

I do not think of my battles as field experiments of relative time. Advance means, slow advance, shoot if you make contact with enemies. Double means that you advance with much less caution but still do not throw it completely away. March means, race for the objective, expolit the breakthrough etc. Not slo-mo vs high-speed. If you want a unit to embark and then disembark to set up new firing positions, you have to play it by double or march since it no longer is a slow advance but a much more hurried action. You get a -1 modifier in your action, but you might be better prepared for an assault instead.

And there is no need to be silent, at least not for my sake.

_________________
Follow my Epic painting projects: Tyranids vs Steel Legion and Inquisition vs Lost and the Damned @
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14636

Suddenly, pop-corn armies completely lost their appeal.

/Fredmans

_________________
Follow my Epic painting projects: Tyranids vs Steel Legion and Inquisition vs Lost and the Damned @
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14636

one of the compaints listed above was rules are scattered throughout the book which might make it hard for beginners. if this is a concern for you couldn't you make a type of glossary at the end, ex shooting: see rules x, y, z on pages 3, 14, 27.
while i might agree w/ you that some rules are scattered, i think you might be a little too hard on them. i've only been playing this new (well not so new) EA rules for less then a year but they don't seem that hard to learn. after all the special rules from the original and especially the second version of the game these are simple. and my friend and i had to learn from the book, we didn't have an experienced player teaching us.

Yeah.  You keep saying that.  Unfortunately, argumentum ad nauseum is also a logical fallacy.  If "it has been said again and again" then it should be easy for you to put your money where your mouth is and provide examples.

_________________
Neal

The fact is that since the 2008 rules review there have been virtually no calls here to change practically any of the core rules. Before the rules review core rules were being debated constantly, but that is no longer the case. The rules review dealt with most of the major screw-ups in the rules, and left us with a rules set that just about everyone is happy with.

Sure, there are minor mods that could be made to improve them, but it's actually pretty nice to have a solid and unchanging ruleset for once, hosted on the official GW site, which the vast majority of people are happy with.

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

I'd like to see the the MW firepower stat go away, to be replaced with Macro-weapon in the notes. Not sure if that's really a review though, the current rules currently support it. Although on a dual mode weapon (AP and AT) you'd have to have a note somewhere if you wanted MW on only the AT.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

What Dave said.

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

Eric, I tend to agree with you that the rules could have been written a little better / more consistently, but generally they do 'say what they mean'. A re-write to tidy them up would be nice but will not happen (sadly) because of the cost involved and the very limited returns on investment. The closest you will get to this is Markonz' effort (the handbook) which attempted to put everything back into a single document. Personally I would really like it if we could revise the SG PDFs to fall in line with the official SG decisions, but am not sure whether that will happen.    

Whether the rules play as you desire is really a matter of personal taste, experience, imagination and ultimately some compromise. For every request for more accurate detail there are counter-arguments to abstract the detail into the game mechanics. In private games it is really up to you what you want to do, but when running public events you really need to use the published materials.

However, the system is still developing or evolving through the various army lists and the 'scenarios', which still offers a limited scope for 'tweaks'. You may find it less frustrating to help out there.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

This has already happened... the six pdfs that have been used as the "online" Epic rulebooks have all been updated with the 2008 Errata and sent to GW for final approval for posting.

We're now just awaiting that approval.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

This would be a 'nice to have' but could be a bit tricky on the existing army lists (eg Marine Land Speeders etc).

Could you expand further on why you would want to make the distinction in effects on Infantry and Vehicles.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Because then you could have a MW-AT weapon that can't be stopped by a Grot... *laugh*

This would be a 'nice to have' but could be a bit tricky on the existing army lists (eg Marine Land Speeders etc).

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Yep, what Chroma said.

Multi-melta 30cm MW5+ -

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17