Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Yeah standard ruins placed on the table at the start of the game will give you 5+ cover (obstructing terrain, above).
However the point I was making is that you're usually going to be much better off keeping a building intact if you intend to take it. Ruins placed as a result of a destroyed building (difficult terrain) only give a 6+ cover save, compared to the 3+/4+ cover that building would normally grant if you didn't blow it up. In addition difficult terrain has a movement penalty, the hit penalty for area terrain is only -1 rather than the -2 from a garrisoned structure, and area terrain doesn't give defender CAF benefits.
Also when re-reading that article I just noticed this, which should answer the original question!
Unlike regular terrain, however, these structures can themselves be attacked and brought tumbling down
leopard wrote: I guess going to a new scale and the associated costs depends how many are contributing to the terrain.
for earlier games printed card etc for buildings works fine, ditto books for hills (though hills can be made to be scale agnostic, ditto rocky outcrops etc)
can get terrain quite cheaply when you go back a bit old school, and if you consider the time taken clipping and cleaning plastic custom made is probably faster too
best way in a group is you all make or get "some" then share it out
Yeah, if you want to make a full urban board with GWs plastic boards and buildings, it'll cost a fortune. If you make roads and/or make or buy older cardstock buildings and play on a Mousemat board, it'll cost a fraction. Generic home made polystyrene hills will be fine.
If you go full homemade, you could end up with:
Spoiler:
When people post pics of the best version of Epic ever (for me!), it gets me thinking I might just stick with it instead!
The_Real_Chris wrote: Other than goonhammer has anyone reviewed the game system yet? Preferably with comparisons to 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition?
Probably not many yet. It seems the 'influencer' program doesn't extend to the small number of actual Epic content creators. It will be a while before people mostly familiar with old editions get their hands on the rulebooks & models.
There are some threads on the epic groups discussing it, as people are watching the 'reviews' & rulebook 'unboxings' already out.
We'll probably start to see honest/practical reviews in another two to three weeks.
Yeah standard ruins placed on the table at the start of the game will give you 5+ cover (obstructing terrain, above).
However the point I was making is that you're usually going to be much better off keeping a building intact if you intend to take it. Ruins placed as a result of a destroyed building (difficult terrain) only give a 6+ cover save, compared to the 3+/4+ cover that building would normally grant if you didn't blow it up. In addition difficult terrain has a movement penalty, the hit penalty for area terrain is only -1 rather than the -2 from a garrisoned structure, and area terrain doesn't give defender CAF benefits.
Also when re-reading that article I just noticed this, which should answer the original question!
Unlike regular terrain, however, these structures can themselves be attacked and brought tumbling down
It's also confusing because i could see on one of the pages a diagram marking area terrain with ruin corners and seemingly invisible lines. Sketchy.
"your structure has been destroyed, replace it with area terrain" looks at diagram, area terrain demarcated by corner ruins. Look at infographic, corner ruins aren't area terrain... wtf? I'm glad this book has 4x as many pages dedicated to terrain rules than titanicus, but my god man if its a jumble of confused concepts with constant "its up to you to define" stuff its going to be less than helpful. I'm already thinking like 5-6 actual structures now that ihave to go and make precise dimensions of each one in area terrain, which I don't mind doing but having a damage model for every piece of terrain I own is getting very much into video game territory and a bit far from tabletop wargaming. Worse still if the rulebook is telling me to both replace a destroyed stucture with ruins and also not replace it with ruins but a magical imagined area demarcated by nothing at the same time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prometheum5 wrote: Ash from GMG said in his review video that he'll be doing a comparison to Space Marine, which I am very curious for.
I believe he's doing a video on the terrrain rules tomorrow.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/11/22 04:53:06
I'd personally solve this by using cardboard or plasticard, making same shaped areas as the buildings and using those for representing destroyed buildings. You could then add some extra bits or ruins on the edges of those areas. IIRC the Original Space Marine game just used cardboard pieces with rubble graphics on them, which you slapped on the ceiling of a building to denote it as having been destroyed..?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/11/22 06:46:49
"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems"
The_Real_Chris wrote: Other than goonhammer has anyone reviewed the game system yet? Preferably with comparisons to 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition?
The only ones I found were made by people with absolutely no idea of Epic (they call the orders+alternate activation "modern mechanics", when they actually come from the 80s).
But seeing that the system is basically Space Marine, you can get an idea. Basically an over-complicated arcade Epic game.
-----
Edit: Also, what is the point of First Fire??, if a charging unit can contact & remove the FF order.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/22 08:57:00
The_Real_Chris wrote: Other than goonhammer has anyone reviewed the game system yet? Preferably with comparisons to 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition?
The only ones I found were made by people with absolutely no idea of Epic (they call the orders+alternate activation "modern mechanics", when they actually come from the 80s).
But seeing that the system is basically Space Marine, you can get an idea. Basically an over-complicated arcade Epic game.
-----
Edit: Also, what is the point of First Fire??, if a charging unit can contact & remove the FF order.
I thought I saw something about units with First Fire being able to shoot units as they approached, with some "defensive" weapons? 1st Edition had "Snap Fire" as an option to First Fire ordered units and here it seems that first fire shooting comes prior to melee.
need to see exactly how they have done it but I think the point of First Fire is to have the opportunity to react to enemy movement before mobile units get to engage
The_Real_Chris wrote: Other than goonhammer has anyone reviewed the game system yet? Preferably with comparisons to 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition?
The only ones I found were made by people with absolutely no idea of Epic (they call the orders+alternate activation "modern mechanics", when they actually come from the 80s).
But seeing that the system is basically Space Marine, you can get an idea. Basically an over-complicated arcade Epic game.
-----
Edit: Also, what is the point of First Fire??, if a charging unit can contact & remove the FF order.
I thought I saw something about units with First Fire being able to shoot units as they approached, with some "defensive" weapons? 1st Edition had "Snap Fire" as an option to First Fire ordered units and here it seems that first fire shooting comes prior to melee.
need to see exactly how they have done it but I think the point of First Fire is to have the opportunity to react to enemy movement before mobile units get to engage
Overwatch.
But Advance orders also give you the chance to Overwatch. So First Fire has really no point against chargers, only against enemy units with Advance orders themselves. Disappointing, as there is almost no defense against chargers (point defense (mostly light weapons), and little more, that will hit on 6s anyways...).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/11/22 12:06:40
But Advance orders also give you the chance to Overwatch. So First Fire has really no point against chargers, only against enemy units with Advance orders themselves. Disappointing, as there is almost no defense against chargers (point defense (mostly light weapons), and little more, that will hit on 6s anyways...).
Yeah picked up on that in the W+ Bat Rep. Bit surprised, I liked 2nd Ed way of doing it (First fire only can shoot at chargers)
Maybe it should be easier to hit if on first fire v advance.
Quite interesting gameplay, it will take a while for me to wrap my head around activation sequencing with oddities like Advance Fire being better against melee units than First Fire.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/22 12:26:59
With FF, you get to shoot at chargers before the combat, with Advance you shoot after the combat has resolved. Advance being more useful than FF is therefore situational, since if the combat doesn't end in one turn, you will be unable to mop up survivors
Overwatch is a mixed bag as well, everything besides point defence weapons hitting on a 6+ means its not going to be very effective.. I wonder how something such as Heavy Flamers will fare for Overwatch, in regular 40K & HH they are among the best defensive weapons against chargers
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/22 13:36:20
"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems"
You can often drive a tank through a building as walls etc are relatively thin (as plenty of WWII film shows,
but once you've done so it is much harder to get the same tank through the piles of rubble, unstable remaining walls, holes where cellars were etc hence the need to bring in bulldozers, and add 'dozer blades to a lot of the tanks
so i don't think it's unreasonable for LI to have buildings you can move though, but once you've converted them to rubble that becomes impassable (representing a combination of it genuinely being much harder to do, and the significant risk of getting stuck, falling over etc so no commander is going to be willing to risk it during battle)
The only real beef I see right now is the absolutely wild melee resolution, with 2d6 opposed and just 1 point of stat difference between guard and marines the stat might as well not be there.
The old meta is dead and the new meta struggles to be born. Now is the time of munchkins.
lord_blackfang wrote: The only real beef I see right now is the absolutely wild melee resolution, with 2d6 opposed and just 1 point of stat difference between guard and marines the stat might as well not be there.
Indeed. 2D6 gives insane amt of randomness to CC outcomes. I'm not a mathhammer expert, but have been thinking you will want that 6+ to your CAF when charging, ie. anything worse in melee than dreads might still backfire badly for the first 1:1 fights.. Outnumbering your opponent will be the most common way to ensure favourable outcomes in melee I'd bet
"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems"
lord_blackfang wrote: The only real beef I see right now is the absolutely wild melee resolution, with 2d6 opposed and just 1 point of stat difference between guard and marines the stat might as well not be there.
Indeed. 2D6 gives insane amt of randomness to CC outcomes. I'm not a mathhammer expert, but have been thinking you will want that 6+ to your CAF when charging, ie. anything worse in melee than dreads might still backfire badly for the first 1:1 fights.. Outnumbering your opponent will be the most common way to ensure favourable outcomes in melee I'd bet
Disagree. Made quick program that goes 100000 fights. 2d6 added together, add CAF, compare. Reroll ties(not sure how ties are done). CAF3 vs 2 resulted 65% more wins for CAF3. With CAF4 almost triple.
2d6 results in LESS swings as worst result happens only 1/36 times vs 1/6 and closest to averages(6, 7, 8) happens 44% times. Ie almost half the time roll is going to be close to the average.
It's why charges is much less swingy as single attacks for example in 40k.
65% more wins with 1 blip more of CAF is pretty significant. You want lower CAF to automatically die?
lord_blackfang wrote: The only real beef I see right now is the absolutely wild melee resolution, with 2d6 opposed and just 1 point of stat difference between guard and marines the stat might as well not be there.
Indeed. 2D6 gives insane amt of randomness to CC outcomes. I'm not a mathhammer expert, but have been thinking you will want that 6+ to your CAF when charging, ie. anything worse in melee than dreads might still backfire badly for the first 1:1 fights.. Outnumbering your opponent will be the most common way to ensure favourable outcomes in melee I'd bet
Disagree. Made quick program that goes 100000 fights. 2d6 added together, add CAF, compare. Reroll ties(not sure how ties are done). CAF3 vs 2 resulted 65% more wins for CAF3. With CAF4 almost triple.
2d6 results in LESS swings as worst result happens only 1/36 times vs 1/6 and closest to averages(6, 7, 8) happens 44% times. Ie almost half the time roll is going to be close to the average.
It's why charges is much less swingy as single attacks for example in 40k.
65% more wins with 1 blip more of CAF is pretty significant. You want lower CAF to automatically die?
Unless you are using a more sophisticated random number generator, your statistics will not reflect real world outcomes. Computerized randomness isn't trivial to do right
"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems"
Vorian wrote: 2d6 will result in more consistent results, you don't need sophisticated random number generators to tell you that.
No, that's not how it works, it's not more "consistent", it's a win/lose scenario, like an elaborate coin toss which is somehow biased. Admittedly probability was never my strong point, but...
2D6 versus 1D6 just means a bonus of X has a smaller effect.
For 1D6 + bonus where the bonus is 0,1,2,3 or 4, the side with the bonus will win 50%, 68%, 81%, 91% and 97% of the time respectively.
For 2D6 + bonus where the bonus is 0,1,2,3 or 4, the side with the bonus will win 50%, 62%, 74%, 83% and 90% of the time respectively.
That's rerolling draws.
You could then say if you fight 100 battles, what's the % chance you win Y amount of the time... which will follow the typical rules for a binomial distribution, it doesn't matter how the wins and losses were generated, only the chance of success of each "trial".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/22 14:48:13
tauist wrote: With FF, you get to shoot at chargers before the combat, with Advance you shoot after the combat has resolved. Advance being more useful than FF is therefore situational, since if the combat doesn't end in one turn, you will be unable to mop up survivors
Overwatch is a mixed bag as well, everything besides point defence weapons hitting on a 6+ means its not going to be very effective.. I wonder how something such as Heavy Flamers will fare for Overwatch, in regular 40K & HH they are among the best defensive weapons against chargers
AFAIKFF you do not shoot chargers before combat, as they remove your FF order on contact.
It is more consistent because you do not have an equal spread of chances, like you will get in a d6.
You will more consistently score results in the middle - but, like the earlier "swingy" discussion, it doesn't really matter.
2d6 or 1d6 won't make things swingy but you're right in that it'll flatten out what CAF will do. They will have had to do this so things like Titans can coexist with SA infantry in the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/22 15:03:33
Vorian wrote: It is more consistent because you do not have an equal spread of chances, like you will get in a d6.
You will more consistently score results in the middle - but, like the earlier "swingy" discussion, it doesn't really matter.
2d6 or 1d6 won't make things swingy but you're right in that it'll flatten out what CAF will do. They will have had to do this so things like Titans can coexist with SA infantry in the game.
2D6 does have a triangular distribution, but the highest probability (a 7) has the same probability as any outcome on a D6, 1/6. So while you are most likely to get close to a 7, there's no one value that's any more likely than any outcome on a D6 roll, and it has a broader spread of values. So it's not really more consistent unless you're writing a system that takes advantage of the triangular distribution.
But the combat thing is my 2D6 roll versus your 2D6 roll, meaning it's a win/lose scenario and the broader triangular distribution really factor into it other than decreasing the value of each point of CAF.
Yes, exactly. It's more consistent in a way that is meaningless for what we're discussing.
I think people are underwhelmed by CAF because we're seeing people who are very unfamiliar with the game committing to fights they shouldn't be.
Stuff that isnt a Knight or Titan can get swamped quite quickly. Charging stuff in buildings when outnumbered will not go well even for things you think are close combat units. Etc.
Prometheum5 wrote: Ash from GMG said in his review video that he'll be doing a comparison to Space Marine, which I am very curious for.
2nd ed Space Marine or 1st?
With regards for 2D6 + caf...
It will generate more extreme results, but overall both sides will be rolling 6/7/8 44% of the time, so getting a +3 will be pretty effective. Though roll D6/2D6/3D6 etc., pick the highest, +caf might have been more flexible.
One more thing I have to add: 2d6 + CAF allows for a more granular representation of close combat skill while simultaneously still giving a chance for a weak unit to defeat a melee monster.
In D6 + caf system, a +6 CAF unit auto wins with anything with +0 CAF, so realistically, we need to cap it at +5 for the most brutal units in the game.
In 2d6, we can allow for much greater variance in CAF values across units, while still allowing the +1 CAF unit to sometimes tie or win with close combat specialist. Of course many people will dislike that (fair enough, I`m also not a fan of that system), but it means that more often than not, the close combat isn`t a foregone conclusion long before rolling the dice, but the players have to actually gamble a bit and choose their fights carefully.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/22 17:32:49
Epic 40k + INQ6 Project Log 
INQ28/Necromunda/Inquisimunda Log 
