Re: Oh dear...

From: necro433331317 <necro433331317_at_...>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:11:57 -0000

--- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com, "domgarnett" <domgarnett@...> wrote:
>
> I'm probably preaching to the converted here, but I'm wondering if
> ANYONE can actually make a case for Epic Armageddon. As a returning
> player I still can't quite fathom why a perfectly good system (ie
> second edtition) wasn't built on by GW, rather than the failed 3rd
> edition system being revamped.
>
> I am interested in Epic Armageddon purely because I might find one or
> two more epic players- but an examination of the rules tells me all I
> need to know. Still the lack of detail. Classic example- war machines
> and titans have a bog standard "wounds" rating and thats it, no
> targetting. That crummy system of blast markers is still there too,
> for "realism". And how many real life battles in the 41st millenium
> have the GW geeks fought in exactly!? Jervis Johnson is a legend- but
> this system is bulls'hit.
>
> Ok, so anyone can be negative, but it just reinforces the need for
> NetEpic to continue to exist and develop- there really is no other
> alternative.
>

well I can explane why GW went for the epic 40,000 (as EA was called
when it was first out) an the reasion is simple they where going
throught a phase of making bad decisions. titan leagions had goten to
the point where the amendims where more importent then the main rules
and they wanted to simplefie it and make it more "smoth flowing" so as
to atrach more pepol to the game and sell more modles (they did a
simla thing to 40k soon after prompting me to end my days of coleting)
and in the case of epic they just plane scrwed it up and then tryed to
pretend they did not ( I am not bitter :( ) anyway it has taken 10
years to find a gw staff membwe who admits that 2ed might have been
the best epic there was

ok to trying to defend EA
they tryed to make it simpla in this way
wounds syste on war mechens dose make it more simpla and it makes
super heavies more woth while (my imperial opent allways got anoyed
when I 1 shoted a shadow sord) again the fact of only having a set
type of fireing makes it simpla (ap at aa etc)

and more comples in these ways
the blast markers and initave and stuff is desined to simulate the
efect that you are playign a stratagy war not a tactail game so units
moral and movemnt is afected by all things and the blast markers are
the best way to how this

the fire fights where make to try to show the diffrence between eg
gean stealers whtch are good at close cos they have claws and
termaintors who have good close rage guns but it got a bit complex cos
they tryed to tye it in to 40k

not to say I like the system I think it is comples where it needs to
be simple an dto simple where it needs to be complex but I can see
what they where trying to acheive

if you want to try to understand it down load the ruls and read the
desine conceps notes thay tells you what they where trying to do

p.s
I recently started playing 40k again and have descovered in the 5th
edition they have brought back almost all the rules I complayned when
they got rid off so I confedentley expect there to be a new epic in 5
years with proper rules
Received on Sat Sep 13 2008 - 15:11:57 UTC