Re: [NetEpic ML] Epic 40,000 evolution:Q Army & Allies

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:22:42 -0400

Hi!
----- Original Message -----
From: "bikerbeerstud" <bikerbeerstud_at_yahoo.com>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Epic 40,000 evolution:Q Army & Allies


> It is in my opinion that even the subjects of the Imperium should
> have to stick hard and fast to the 75/25, one ally rule.
> I prefer SM/TL, and really enjoy how the army cards limit the
> composition of you army and, in a way, force you to play 'that'
> army. Imperium players are the worst at making the 'perfect' army
> since they have so much to choose from, so the ally rule allows you
> to add a little, but essentially not change the army.

Yes, Imperial players are repeating offerder in this regard. That's how come the allies rule must be strictly enforces with Imperial armies. Players must learn how to play thier "pure" army. Anyone can win with a mixed army by limiting weakness due to troop selection, but where's the fun in that?
>
> Now, to take that a little further, I feel the 'open endedness' of
> Epic40k spoiled the uniqueness of each army, and greatly hurt the
> game as a whole. How much fun can it be when everyone pretty much
> builds the same army?

A piece by piece unit contruction is good for 40k as a skirmish game, but really doesn't belong in a epic scale game. The epic 40k games I've witness quickly devolve in armies that are always the same min/maxing good units (Land raider armies anyone?). While you could do it in SM/TL it is more difficult and if you enforce WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) then "cheesiness" (if you want an all bloodletter army they'd better ALL be bloodletter models).
>
> For me, it all boils down to this;
> SM/TL is like 40k, only BIGGER.
> Epic40k is like 40k, only SMALLER.

hehe. pretty slick description, I'll be using this one. It's funny that those who like the system say its better for large games, but all the ones I've seen have much fewer models on the table than a SM/TL game, they look like skirmishes not huge battles.
>
> What I mean by that is that SM/TL played like mass combat. Regiments
> of troops, companies of tanks. Truly titanic battles. And Epic40k
> is just like it's 25mm brother but on a 6mm scale. Little units,
> individual vehicles, Short range conflicts.
> SM/TL had real unique armies with lots of special units and rulz (see
> orks!), and Epic40k was just a homogonized version. Dull and
> flavorless.
>
I really think epic 40k has some good core mechanics, I even used some variants of them in Heresy. BUT (and a big one), it lacks grit (chrome, flash, detail) and that has killed it for many. Why should I play epic 40k while there is a better generic system out there like DSII? I want the rules to refelct the 40k universe with all the wierd special units and rules. I WANT my weapons to have a different effects, I WANT a clear difference between infantry armor and a tanks armor, I WANT restictions on how I can build my army. For me thats what the 40k universe is all about.

> Now, on to some GW bashing. How could you field a legion sized army
> and fight a titanic battle when artillary pieces come two to a
> blister, cost a fortune, and are made out of 4 or 5 pieces?! The
> troop boxes went from 5/10 sprues of troops, down to the equivlent of
> just two. Nearly all the pieces got remodeled, and the player foots
> the bill. However, only a few of the re-models were worth it, such
> as Imperial Titans, Eldar Vehicles, and the new plastics. Most of
> the work, ended up with unjustifiable results as most units didn't
> look much better than the originals, and some were terrible (Eldar
> Titans?) And to top it all off, tons of good stuff went away.
> MekBoy gargants, tinbots, robots, Eldar knights.....Squats. Loads of
> great metal were reduced to cheap plastic and stuff that used to come
> on the plastic sprues were now seperate metal!

If any ONE thing has killed epic as a viable seller this is it. The packaging strategies are just plain stupid and the prices- MY LORD! I used to be a retailer and back them a good selling point was that epic was cost effective in comparison to other GW games, because you got a lot for your money. That all went to hell after the last game was released, prohibitively expensive to size the large armies they say the game was designed for! Add that, to removing ALL the old stuff PRIOR to the games release and a flawed release schedule was sheer stupidity and doomed the game.

Some say their is a resurgence of epic sales, this is true, but not for the reasons GW would like to believe. Simply put its selling because its now at a price that is affordable. Had they released it with these lower prices perhaps it would not been such a flop.

> So, to sum it all up, they labotomized the game system, and expected
> us to throw money at them for the privelege.

hehe, you forget that according to GW we SHOULD thank them for such wondrous releases! I for one revel in the privilidge or NOT supportingthem.
>
> Pardon the long post and my soap box.

<grin> no worries, its always safe to preach to the converted!

Peter
Received on Sat Feb 02 2002 - 14:22:42 UTC