|
|
Post by CyberShadow on May 23, 2002 13:31:21 GMT -5
Just a quick note to those who it may interest. Epic Mag 10 arrived this morning, and aside from half of the Tau army list it states that the EpicA rules will be available from: www.epic40000.comI will try to keep an eye on the address and let you know when it all appears. |
|
|
|
Post by CyberShadow on May 24, 2002 12:37:44 GMT -5
Well, rather confusingly, the rules are now available on the main Fanatic web site. www.games-workshop.com/fanaticIf anyone wants to put together a report or article on how it plays, that would be great. |
|
|
|
Post by Blacksnotling on May 26, 2002 7:41:10 GMT -5
Confusing? Games-Workshop? Never ;D
Its nice of GW to give away rules for a change though.
|
|
|
|
Post by CyberShadow on May 27, 2002 7:07:37 GMT -5
Agreed. This is a great move from Fanatic. I know that we will have to pay for the full rules, but to be able to contribute is a great idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadow_Hunter on Jun 5, 2002 9:51:40 GMT -5
I cant even get a game of the present version, so its unlikely I'm gonna be able to play test these new rules. Also, I've never played the imperial or orks so couldn't comment on any changes to past and present.
I'll have a look at them though, and maybe grab a few of my brothers stuff to see how it works, I doubt it will be any good for any kind of a review though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadow_Hunter on Jun 24, 2002 4:23:12 GMT -5
Well I've just read through your article on the epic armeggedon rules properly now. I've only really just had time for a proper look.
From what I gathered, it looked quite a quick flowing game. The reserve move is deffinantly not designed for with drawing, as was corrected. It did make the defender far more powerful. I think the retreat move too should either be away from the enemy, or towards table edge, depending on the mission. I cant imagine a broken detatchment moving towrdfs the enemy.
I will dig out some space marines and have a little go at it myself. That way I can truely see for myself what difficulties may arise, and I now have a decent starting point.
|
|
|
|
Post by CyberShadow on Jun 24, 2002 6:13:39 GMT -5
Great. And if you want to put together a brief report on how it played and what you thought then we can collect these comments here. You never who reads this stuff!  |
|
|
|
Post by Shadow_Hunter on Aug 21, 2002 13:41:29 GMT -5
Well I finally got round to having a go with tthe new rules. Took a while I know, and I still had to play myself!  Anyway. I liked the game (I played the scenaroi where you have everything. Didn't bother with the games of just tac units on thier own) Though I think the units need to deploy further away from the objective. I got one formatoin in it straight away by just doing a double move. They still got to fire aswell. And with six stands I got a hit on the Land Raiders, though it was saved. I kept retaining the initiative, since it was so easy to do with marines. I found the regular tactical units were extremely hard. Devestator units were good too, even at attacking Land Raiders. The Land Raiders weren't as powerful as I thought they would be, though I may have just been unfortunant with them. The assault marines did rubbish for me. I charged them in too early, straight away in fact. I charged the 6 unit tac squad on the objective. I figured I'd be okay. In the end we both caused three hits, and suffered one wound. We both rolled a six highest (the assault marines got double 6) but as they were out numbered the assault marines lost and fell back. I'm gonna have another game, as at the moment I cant comment on what the assault part is like. I do like the options of movement available. Though I'm not sure if a -1 modifier for moving twice is enough. Especially large units. My tac marines were covering a large amount of ground, and still dishing out a decent amount of hits. Though I must admit the 6's were really generous in this game. I dont like the broken withdrawing move. As far as I could tell, you dont have to move at all, and if you do it can be in any direction. So my broken detatchments were still closing towards the enemy/objective. Either that or staying still, as though nothing had happened. I guees you could argue reasons for it though. IE the broken det. falls back towards the objective as its a safe area. Or the broken det not moving as its keeping its head down. I would just prefer it if it said you could not fall back towards the enemy. I find it apity that a formation of land raiders could not pick up troops of another formation. I can understand regular transport units that are part of a formation including trooops not being able to, but a vehicle such as a land raider could have special rules that enable it to. Something like- a formation consisting of purely land raiders may transport a formation cosisting of purely troops, as long as there is enough transport capacity for the entire formation. Also, there doesn't seem much benefit for marines to be in a land raider. They both have the same save, and unless its roads the raider's not much quicker. (baring in mind that it would have to go round any difficult terrain, unless it takes a test) Of coarse I'm basing this on regular tac marines. I suppose it is beneficial to carry devestator units. And maybe termies are slow too (dont know). Well I seem to answer most of my queries. Never mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Shadow_Hunter on Aug 22, 2002 4:07:47 GMT -5
On thing I forgot. I remember seeing a rule where the formation was facing a certain direction, based on the arc of the HQ unit. This enabled flanking moves to be carried out, or something like that. Is this still there (its not in the demo)? Or is it replaced by that crossfire rule?
|
|
|
|
Post by CyberShadow on Aug 22, 2002 7:01:50 GMT -5
Firstly, the question. Detachments dont actually have HQ units any more. The facing of the HQ unit was in one of the first versions of EpicA, and got dropped very quickly. It is now, indeed, replaced by Crossfire.
It sounds like your experiences were very similar to mine. I dont like the assault phase much as it is. And my Assault marines were crushed in their first engagement. I have heard that the key is to soft up the target and inflict a few blast markers before striking.
The benefit of being in a Land raider is that only AT weapons can hit it. Since almost all weapons can affect infantry and only some can hit tanks, there is more protection in a transport.
The withdraw move I agree with. It is a bit confusing and can lead to strange situations. As for formations transporting other detachments, I guess that it means that a complete Land Raider detachment will not exist. I must admit that I prefer the transport rules like the are and agree with the system.
Anyway, thanks for the report and keep us informed on any others that you have.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadow_Hunter on Aug 22, 2002 7:11:45 GMT -5
Ahh glad you mentioned the AT fire with regard to transorts. I'd forgot about that. You're right then, the transports are a viable thing now, saving your troops from AP fire.
I hope to get the vault opened to me so I can play some more in depth games, and get a proper feel for the game.
What's the vault like? Does it include Eldar? As I would be in a better position to compare it then.
|
|
|
|
Post by CyberShadow on Aug 22, 2002 7:47:46 GMT -5
Rihght now, the vault simply contains the rules and reference sheets that you need to play the latest version of the game. I cant see Eldar making it into the game (aside from very simply lists in the rule book) until EpicA is actually out.
It has been said that EpicA will only cover Imperial and Orks from the start, and I can imagine that there will be a simply Eldar (and other) list for those of us with the minis and the full lists will probably be in Epic Mag and a suppliment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadow_Hunter on Aug 22, 2002 8:00:56 GMT -5
I did think that the new system would primarily deal with imperail and ork, the title gave it away. This must change to incorperate other armies other wise their would be no point adding Tau etc.
The only thing is, does this mean that there will be EpicA which will introduce imperial and ork, and then other armies follow in supplements? I guess so. I do think though, that calling it Epic Armegeddon is a bit c**p
. I mean for those of us who dont really care for imperial or ork armies (me, okay I'm being selfish) it means the army I know and love is to be an afterthought. Will the title change when it comes to introduce other forces?
I just get the feeling, with calling it after the well known battle for Armageddon, other armies wont feel a part of the system. Am I making sense? I'm not sure I'm putting my point across very well with the old typing lark.
|
|
|
|
Post by CyberShadow on Aug 22, 2002 8:34:41 GMT -5
I see your point, and agree to a certain extent. I think that this problem is in the perception. As far as I know, GW state that all the races were involved in Armageddon - but the general gamers just associates it with Imperials and Orks (which were the main players).
I also feel that my 'favourite' armies have been sidelined, but we will see. If Epic follows Gothic, we can expect to see an annual reprinting the Mag stuff - which will probably deal with other races.
|
|
|
|
Post by stormking on Aug 22, 2002 10:23:08 GMT -5
will they include chaos as they also invaded armageddon?
|
|
