Epic Armageddon: First Contact
CyberShadow
|
|
|
I will have to put this into context, as there is a danger of someone reading this in a year and the whole lot being completely out of date! This is a result of a few days of Epic activity. The first version of the Epic Armageddon playtest rules went online just over a week ago (in May 2002), and I could not wait to download them and pour over the result. After reading, I decided that a brief article here might prove educational to a few people, and interesting to a few more.
This article is split into three sections. The first part consists of my thoughts as I read through the printed rules. I then managed to play a small game, and the middle third is a description of this, illustrating how the rules work and which survive the heat of battle. The last part is the conclusion, stating what was good and what needs more work or culling totally. Additionally, you might find it useful to read the Epic Armageddon rules to appreciate the references made here. Enjoy, and feel free to pop over to the EpiComms forum to discuss anything that you may or may not agree with.
Like most people, I downloaded the rules for Epic Armageddon as soon as I heard that they were available. However, it was a week before I could look through them properly due to a serious lack of time. I was not sure exactly what to expect for the fourth edition rules, but for the initial playtest rules I did think that there would be references to third edition, such as the close combat rules and other areas that may be unchanged in any way. This did not happen, and the rules set was complete and stand-alone. The rules came out relatively short and clearly written, which was a nice surprise.
The first thing that I noticed when reading through was the small phrase that measuring could be done at any time. This was a real relief for me, as a restriction on measuring is usually the result of an attempt to add guesswork into rules, an aspect that I am very much against. Not such a good omen was the phrase 'buckets full of dice'. One of the battle reports in Epic Mag had a shooting phase which consisted of over fifty dice, and this is simply too much. While I am not a great fan of firepower tables, they are preferable to trying to remember modifiers for seven different types of weapons and rolling fistfulls of dice.
The first real difference encountered is the 'less is more' way in which the game works. The rules and stats work on a 'to hit' value, instead of a firepower or assault value. What this means is that a lower number is better under the new system, while it has seemed that Games Workshop has tried to avoid this kind of thing in the past, instead sticking to the maxim that more should always be better. While it is initially more obvious and understandable that higher values are better than lower ones on your troops stats, it does not take too long to get used to.
I then came across the first problem in the rules. Under fourth edition, units in a detachment must remain within 5cm of another unit, and while this does mean that your detachment can potentially take up a longer firing line, it is less flexible than third editions formation of within 30cm of the command stand. I can see many situations where a detachment is strung out using two areas of cover which are seperated by 8cm of killing ground. One of your units has to sit here, and will become the target for every enemy gun that can see it. Not only this, but when the unfortunate unit enevitably leaves the table, another unit must take its place to keep formation. I can see the detachment watching poor squad alphus disappear in a hail of enemy firepower and then drawing straws behind a wall to see who will go out and replace it!
It is good to see that blast markers made the cut and are carried through to fourth edition. Not only this, but they have been made even better. The use of blast markers is such as elegant one that it seems the only way that they could really be used at all, with each marker pinning a unit and stopping it from firing. My only worry is that it seems that they will pile up fairly quickly and incapacitate a detachment within a couple of turns.
Strategy ratings. Well, I am very glad that we are not picking tokens out of a cup any more, and I can see the reason that these were put in, but I dont really like the idea of rerolls. Only being able to use one each turn does go some way to limiting their effectiveness, but a reroll can be a very useful thing in the right situation and I have always been a fan of the idea that simple bad luck is always present and should be factored into a battle plan. But, maybe that is just me.
The turn sequence looks like an interesting idea. Just one question Mr Johnson, are we going to get 'activated' counters so that we know which detachments have taken their actions already? In smaller games this is not really a problem, but when your transports move as the first action of the turn, it could be difficult to remember whether the troops next to them moved as well. The back of these things could also be used to signpost broken detachments, as these dont take actions.
Cover saves are another area which I like, although I can see debate over this. Basically, a unit in cover replaces its normal save with a 4+ one. This means that Marines in a building save just as often as Eldar Guardians. I like this, and it feels right to me, but as I say, others may disagree.
The transport rules seem a little strange as a transport picks up troops by effectively running over them. While I can see why this was done, it just doesn't feel right to have the transport pick up the troops. The troops should run over and get in to the transport. But, I suppose that this is the simplest way to limit those who get on the Rhino, move it and then get off and move the troops, since the tank now has to make a detour to pick up the infantry. Personally, I would prefer something along the lines that troops move onto the transport, only if the transport has not made its action this turn.
The second of the larger worries (the detachment coherency being the first) appears next, in the form of the targetting rules. In the scenario that my detachment faces an enemy formation of only Land Raiders as the closest target, I must fire at the Land Raiders (OK so far), but since not all of my weapons can affect the tanks, the remaining shots are lost completely. How about a unit must target the closest enemy formation that it can affect? However, in general the rules for shooting seem to be streamlined and effective. They read well and there does not seem to be too many issues with them.
Close combat, however, is a bit more of an effort. A point of discussion is that close combat defenders can make a reserve move. I (and most people, I would guess) would take this to mean that stands which are not in base contact with the enemy can make the move, but this is not stated. The letter of the rules states that any enemy unit which is charged can make a reserve move, meaning that you are never forced to engage in close combat. Been charged and don't like it? Use your reserve move and get out of the way! Secondly, in the event of a tie another round of close combat is played out, but is this immediately or does it wait until next turn?
In general, the rules look good. They seem effective and streamlined, and most importantly logical. I feel that this is the area that made the difference between Epic third edition and Gothic. While Gothic worked in a way that was consistant and that just seemed right, so that you could see why you were rolling a specific dice, Epic lacked that sense and suffered for it. The level of abstraction, while necessary and a noble goal, was pitched too strongly and the coherency of the rules started to fray a little at the edges. The fourth edition seems to put this 'its obvious what to do next and why' factor back, and this is great to see. I still have worries over the success of Epic Armageddon, but from initial views the rules hang together well. Perhaps the only concern that I have on the rules as a set is how they would function in large games. We all like Epic because of the massed formations and hundreds of units that you can field, but it is easy for a game system to get bogged down at this scale. Blast markers will help, as will 'activated' counters, but firing many detachments may slow the game as anti personel and anti tank shots are evaluated seperately, and each rolls to hit, allocates hits and then units make saves. In any case, my first impressions are great, and the rules actually make me want to play a game with them, so I did.
After reading through the new version of the rules, it was thought that the best way to get a feel of them was to play a game, and both my regular opponent Tim and I wanted to see how they worked in the 'real world'. So, with most of my Epic miniatures in storage, we threw together as much as we could find - mostly old Space Marine stuff which never got completed before the next project took hold!
Setup:
Looking at the troops that we were able to muster, we found that we had enough for a scenario from the rules. We decided on the 'Combined Arms Training' scenario. I took the Assault force, while Tim had the Devastator squad force. The table was setup slightly longer than the scenario recommends, and so we allowed setup to be done within 30cm of the table edge. The objective was set up on a single central hill, next to the Censorium and a building. The rest of the terrain consisited of numerous buildings - mostly from the first edition Space Marine set.
|
|
Turn One:
The first roll for initiative for turn one was won by myself, and so I got the first action. I started by moving one of the Tactical Squads with a march move, and they stormed forwards into buildings on the outskirts of the town around the hill and objective. At this point, we discovered that the Armageddon rules did not fully cover infantry squads in buildings. For example, we used the old Space Marine rule that troops could occupy buildings and remain in formation if the buildings were within 5cm of each other, even if the squads moved around inside them and were physically more than 5cm apart. I gave the initiative across to Tim, who issued march orders to his Land Raiders, transporting his Devastator squad. They raced around the East side of the hill and dropped off their charges before advancing further forward - we assumed that, while the transports have to drop of troops at the end of their move, they could do this at the end of any of the three seperate moves that a formation on march orders makes. Tim then handed the initiative back to me, and I followed suit by 'marching' my Land Raiders (?), with their Assault troops down the centre of the table, and the squads disembarked. I then retained the initiative and gave the Assault squads 'charge' orders, sending them storming towards the enemy Land Raiders to engage them in close combat. However, due to the rules stating that charged formations can make reserve moves, Tim moved his Land Raiders away and out of combat. Not only this, but due to the fact that the tanks are fast vehicles, they moved 20cm, which took them out firefight range as well! And, all of this was after the Land Raiders had already made their moves and taken their action. Oh, the injustice! Having given two formations actions, I was forced to hand the initiative over, and Tim immediately moved his Tactical squad forward on 'double' orders, and threw their firepower at my Assault troops - which were now milling around, completely in the open and totally unsupported. Luckily for me, Tim needed 6's to hit, and failed with all six stands. He still inflicted a single balst marker, and although he used one of his rerolls to try to tip the odds in his favour, no hits were scored.
He then kept the initiative, giving his Devastators unit a 'move' action. The crested the edge of the hill and came round with guns blazing. Two hits were scored, and while I failed both the save rolls I used a reroll which I thankfuly passed, resulting in a single stand leaving the table and two more blast markers arriving. With a total of three blast markers, and a stand killed, the Assault formation was broken, and I used the withdrawal move to take the stands back behind the Land Raiders. I got the next action, since Tim had used two in succession, and I marched the second Tactical squad around the West of the central hill. Tim then did likewise and moved his second Tactical squad up the middle and towards the city, taking up position on the hill.
With this, the first turn was over. Tim already had a unit within 15cm of the objective, showing just how quickly units can move around the battlefield and cover large distances with the march move. I tried to rally my Assault formation, but failed the 3+ needed and the stands fell back. However, it is not stated which direction the formation falls back, so I moved them forward, towards the objective! I made sure that they were more than 15cm from any enemy units but within 15cm of the objective, contesting it and keeping out of enemy hands.
|
|
Turn Two:
One thing that I do like about these rules is that the first turn is the same as every other turn. While this may seem like a minor point, it causes less confusion and makes the game more logical. Setup is a very quick affair and you can get into the game rapidly and with minimum organisation. The second turn began like the first with a roll for initiative. Tim won this time, and issued a move order to his Land Raiders. They returned close to the position that they had taken before running away from my Assault troops, and engaged my Land Raiders, scoring a kill and two blast markers. This meant that the formation was quickly broken. He then held the initiative and gave the Tactical formation which had recently advanced into the edge of the town move orders. They took up positions in nearby buildings and from here rained firepower into my troubled Assault formation, but failed to score the 5's needed to hit. With my options eroding before my eyes, I gave the Tactical formation in the West side of the battlefield double orders, moving them forwards to occupy the open ground directly West of the central hill. From here they targeted Tims newly arrived Tactical formation, but only managed a single hit which was subsequently saved. My only consolation was that the blast marker would pin a stand. My other Tactical stand then retained the initiative and were given move orders. While they did not actually move at all, they were happy entrenched in buildings, they also targeted the same enemy Tactical formation, scoring three hits. Two of these were saved, but a kill and two blast markers was not such a bad result.
Tim then moved his Devastator formation into the Censorium on the hill, and from there they took relaxed shots at my poor Assault units. Four were hit, and while two of these saved the formation was reduced by two stands, leaving a poor unit on its own. While this stand could not now rally, it could still run around, and I was determined to make as much use out of it as possible. After all, it was no use to me and was not a liability, and by moving it forwards I could protect my larger formations, forcing Tim to waste the firepower of a whole formation to take out a single stand, as he had to target the closest enemy. The last of Tims Tactical formation was given a move order and the turn ended. Tim controlled the objective, but as my Assault stand could not rally, it 'withdrew' closer to the objective again and stopped him from claiming it uncontested. I then managed to rally my Land Raider formation.
|
|
Turn Three:
I won the initiative for this turn, and decided to try to reduce the threat of the enemy Land Raiders currently facing me. My own tanks managed to get a single hit, even after I attempted a reroll, but this was saved and so I had to be happy with just an inflicted blast marker. I kept the initiative and issued move orders to my Tactical formation in the buildings. They again held their position and struck at the Land Raiders. At this point, I was not so worried about actually killing any, since I had inflicted two blast markers just by targeting with two formations. I did managed to take out one of the tanks however, and the others withdrew behind the Censorium to recover. Tim then had to shoot at my lone Assault stand with his Devastator formation as it was the closest, obliterating it with three hits, only one of which was saved. He then used one of his Tactical formations to fire against my Land Raiders, scoring no kills but breaking the unit, which withdrew behind buildings.
I then had the initiative, and gave my Tactical formation in the buildings a move action, targeting the enemy Tactical formation also in buildings, but failing to inflict any hits. Tim then moved his last Tactical formation and another turn ended. Once again, Tim claimed the objective, but this time I had no broken units to move to contest it. The final act of the turn was for both of us to rally our Land Raider formations.
Turn Four:
I again won the intiative for the turn, but things were not looking good at all. Tim only had to hold the object for this turn to win the game, and he was securely dug in, occupying the buildings on the central hill. I needed storm this hill, and I had nothing to lose. Both Tactical formations surged forwards, the first scoring a kill on the Devastator formation in the Censorium and the second scoring hits which were saved on the enemy Tactical formation. Tim then had the initiative, and decided to take the fight to the enemy, and to test the close combat rules at the same time. His Tactical formation in the centre of the town charged one of my Tactical formations. He scored three hits, one of which I managed to save, while I scored a similar three hits, and again one was saved. The combat resolution gave me a +3 as I had one more stand involved, no blast markers and less blast markers than the enemy, and I comfortably won the combat. Tims Tactical formation fled, and mine took three more blast markers.
I then had the initiative, and moved my Land Raiders forward again towards the hill. They targeted the enemy Devastators and scored a hit, and then an additional hit using a reroll. And then both of these were saved! Still, the formation was broken and retreated behind the Censorium. Tim then moved his Land Raiders forward to engage mine that he had lured out. He scored a kill, breaking the formation, and it withdrew behing the Tactical formation which had stormed the hill. The last action of the turn was for Tim to march his final Tactical formation into buildings on the hill, taking up a position to compensate for the disappearance of their brothers. I had managed to contest the objective, and had survivied with a lot more than I thought that I would. The last ditch charge had seen off a formation and brought my units into range. My Land Raider could not rally, and did not move at all, and Tims Tactical and Devastator formations both decided that they were actually Marines, turned round and were ready to fight again.
|
Turn Five:
Once more, I had the initiative for the turn, and my Tactical formation now on the hill moved towards the enemy Land Raiders and managed to take one out, breaking the unit and forcing it to retreat behind the cover of some buildings. My second Tactical formation, to the West of the hill moved forwards, past the enemy front line. They then caught the enemy Tactical formation in a crossfire, and while they did not manage to score any kills, they did inflict two blast markers. Tim then issued move orders to the Tactical formation which had moved to occupy the buildings. They stayed in position and peppered my Tactical formation with shots. Their cheering was interupted by the barrage of firepower, and they realised that their close combat had left them alone and unsupported, right outside the enemies doors, literally. One stand was destroyed, two blast markers were inflicted, and the formation broke. Tims second Tactical formation then moved forward to the brow of the hill and drew their sights on my other Tactical squads. They could only manage a single shot, which missed, but Tim used a reroll, hit and I then failed the save. I had no more units, and Tim gave a move action to his Devastator uits in the Censorium, and they shot at the same Tactical formation but failed to hit.
In the end phase of the fifth turn, I could not rally my Land Raider, and it stayed where it was, and my Tactical formation also failed its rally roll, making a withdrawal move of 0cm and staying in place.
|
|
Turn Six:
Again, I won the initiative, but this was of little use as I was rapidly losing control of my units. My only unbroken Tactical formation charged forwards, engaging both the enemy Tactical and Devastator formations in close combat, and this is where things got a little messy. Tim used his reserve move to get the Tactical stands out of close combat and into firefight range (yes, we both know that the Devastator units are more useful in a firefight, but we wanted to see how it went). I scored a single kill, while Tim hit four stands, killing two of them. The combat resolution became a little confusing as issues such as 'I have less blast markers than one enemy formation, and more than the other, do I get the plus one to resolution?' and 'I have inflicted a single blast marker on the enemy, is this on both formations, or one, and which one?'. The result that we agreed on left my force broken (no surprise there), and a single blast marker on Tims Devastator formation.
With that being my sole unbroken formation, I handed the initiative to Tim, who gave both of his Tactical formations move actions. They both targeted my two Tactical formations, but neither managed to score any kills. The end phase saw Tim in control of the objective, and his Devastator formation rallied, while I failed to rally any of my units at all.
With no formations unbroken, I could not give them any orders. And, with Tim sitting on the objective I could not get within 15cm of it or be destroyed, meaning that Tim would still control the objective in the next end phase and I could do nothing to stop this. So, the game ended there.
|
|
After the game, both Tim and I sat down with a cup of tea to discuss the rules and chat about what we did and did not like about them, and what we would change and how.
Tims Conclusion:
There are a number of very good points about the rules as they are. The use of initiative keeps the game fluid and moving along well. The units all move and you cannot be sure where your targets will be next turn, in this way it captures the same feel as Battlefleet Gothic, you think ahead and take your targets when you can. Also, the shooting system is fast and simple, and the movement and orders system is easy to understand and to use. The transport rules work well, without dealing with hundreds of exceptions and 'what ifs' and the system of blast markers pinning units is realistic and streamlined.
Bad points revolve around the close combat system. The reserve move should not be available to exit all of your units from combat, as it gives the defenders far too much control over exactly who fights and who does not. The use of doubles in close combat resolution also is unnecessary and slows the game down. In general, the entire close combat system could be condensed into a single stage, where close combat is fought as normal, and the number of casualties decides the winner. The current system allows no relation between the number of casualties actually inflicted and the overall winner of the close combat engagement, aside from the small modifier if you score a few more kills. It is possible to lose the close combat, and still win the resolution, which does not feel right. The ability of withdrawing troops to move any distance and in any direction is also open to abuse. Withdrawing troops should move directly away from the enemy which caused the break, and where there is no specific enemy they should move away from the closest one, and should be forced to make a minimum movement.
In general, the game was very enjoyable, streamlined and understandable. The rules need a few modifications, but they are a very good basis and I look forward to the final version.
My Conclusion:
I have to admit that I agree in part with Tims views. Perhaps the biggest confusion in the rules is with close combat. It seems strange that, in a recent Epic Mag, Mr Johnson stated that using two dice to resolve the close combat ironed out any unrealistic results when a weaker player managed to luckily roll a six. However, using a double to bring up unusual circumstances does seem to add this type of element back in, as well as adding an unnecessary set rule. I can see why it was done, it makes a talking point in the game and adds a bit of variety to an otherwise predictable situation, but I would like to see the whole deal with rolling doubles as an optional rule, and one that was not used in competitive play or unless both players decide to use it. Preferably, I would also like to see combat resolution as a result of kills, and not as a seperate set of dice rolls. My own suggestion would be that each player adds the number of remaining stands after close combat removals, the total number of blast markers on the enemy formation and the number of kills that they made in close combat. The higher result is simply the winner. Automatically breaking the loser of the close combat also seems a little severe, and pushing back with a blast marker for each killed stand would probably allow larger formations to survive, although reduced, while breaking smaller formations. Using kills as the only way of resolving close combat would also get rid of those difficult to sort out combats where a number of formations from each side are involved. Alternatively, the close combat proceedure as it is needs to be made clearer, as where there is more than a single formation from each side things get very messy quickly.
Similarly, Tims comment about withdrawing from close combat is valid, and I managed to contest objectives by withdrawing a single broken stand towards his main line. This can't be right. Aside from these points, there are only a few minor comments, some of which are just about my preference in the game. I would like to see a 'First Fire' action, perhaps as a part of the overwatch action. There are many times when the formation does not want to move at all, and simply hold its position. While they may not be any better at firing, perhaps an increased save for infantry would represent them embedding themselves in. Kills resulting in a blast marker is very powerful, and perhaps this really should be. Each kill reduces the ability of a formation to perform under fire, and also adds pressure in the form of another blast marker. In formations of four stands, a single kill only allows the formation space to take one more blast, a second set of firepower against it and it does not matter if any are removed, the unit is broken. Perhaps formations will be bigger in the final version (I hope so), and so this will not such a problem.
My worries about the use of rerolls upsetting the game were not evident. While it is true that rerolls can be very powerful, I found that the number of dice being rolled meant that rerolling one of them is not going to change a lot, and this is great. Of the games systems, perhaps this is the one in which rerolls actually work best and do what they are supposed to without over-compensating. I also wondered if reducing the strategy rating of the army as rerolls were used would add an element to the game, as players then have a reason not to use them as well.
Something that we both agreed on, is that the inability to split a formations firepower could cause strange situations. I can see a situation where a formation is faced by only Land Raiders, and so its anti-personel firepower is lost. Perhaps the wording should be changed to 'a unit must fire all available weapons at the closest unit that it is able to affect'. So, in the above situation, the formation must fire its anti-tank weapons at the Land Raiders, as they are the closest unit, but anti-personel weapons can be fired at the closest infantry unit.
A clarification of the reserve move rule would be good. I am ninety-five percent sure that units in base to base contact cannot make the reserve move, but unengaged units can. This would stop the defender picking just which formations close assault, which firefight and which just run away. Additionally, it would stop units getting out of the close combat, as they would need to remain within 5cm of engaged units. The firefight value of Devastator units also seems a little high. A 3+ makes them very good, especially considering that they get two heavy weapons in ranged firing, making them an excellent all round unit. I would reduce this to a 4+, as while they have an extra heavy weapon compared to a Tactical unit, most of these weapons are not known for their ability to make opportune fire. Finally, only allowing units a normal move on charge orders, but having both double and march moves seems strange. A unit can only walk into close combat, but can run and shoot. I can see that a double move for charge would result in strikes from across the battlefield by jump pack equiped troops, but my own solution would be a double move for charge orders, and jump packs only allowing you to avoid terrain, not move further.
Generally, the rules work well and flow to make an enjoyable game. In particular, the rules for blast markers pinning a unit are very effective and easy to use, and getting rid of both keeping track of moral points and picking initiative counters out of a cup is a good thing in my book. Perhaps the best aspect of the rules is that they make intuitive sense. I can see how many dice I am rolling, and exactly why I am rolling them and what it means. This makes the game easier to play and understand, which is a necessary aspect in a 6mm science fiction game. The biggest indication of the rules to me, is that I am compiling a list of what I would like to see released and changed, while previously I waited to see what Fanatic came out with. Now, if they could only give me an idea about the army lists so that I can make up some stands with the right models and organise the formation to paint identification markings, then I would be painting stuff up right now. And that says a lot about what I think of the rules...
Date: 09/06/2002
Author: CyberShadow
After adding this to the site, I received an email from Jervis Johnson, who was kind enough to clear up a few of the points raised in the article. So, I thought that I would copy his email here for the benifit of anyone else reading this.
|
The transport rules neglect to mention that transport vehicles can only transport units _from their own formation_.
This stops weird things happening when a formation carrying out an action moves around a formation that isn’t carrying
out an action, and also stops players using transports as some kind of taxi service. In ‘real life’ transport vehicles
are usually assigned to specific units, and if they aren’t then they return to a vehicle pool after dropping units off
rather than hanging around looking for other people to pick up. I was a member of the 40K team when 3rd edition came out, and so have been over all of the arguments both for and against allowing units to split fire once already. What the various discussions showed was that: a) It is actually quite hard to get real-life units to split fire against different targets (i.e. splitting fire is not ‘more realistic’)... but more importantly... b) Not allowing formations to split fire makes for a more skilful game. One of the key decisions you will face during a game is picking the right target to shoot at; you have to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the fire against the different targets and decide where it will be best used. Allowing players to split fire turns this pretty much into a no-brainer, and this is the primary reason I have not allowed it in EpicA. As an aside, please note that when you shoot you do not have to pick the closest target formation as your target. You’ve missed an important part of the reserve moves: A unit can use a reserve move to move directly towards the closest enemy unit. Note that you are only allowed to move towards the closest enemy unit. This stops units running off, and sorts out any of the potential problems you mention. Best regards, Jervis Johnson Head Fanatic |
Date: 15/06/2002
Author: CyberShadow