[NetEpic ML] Re: Why all the changes? was: Flyers revisited yet again!

From: Joshua W Raup <deaconblue3_at_...>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 03:30:19 -0500

Hi Joshua!

Nobody does Fluff like Games Workshop!


Warprat ;)

-->Until they get all revisionist, making a kinder, gentler, 41st
millenium! 8) Just as a case in point, the old commisar rules for 40K
(now back again, kinda). If a commisar was near, or with a unit that
failed a leadership test, kiss the officer/sgt good bye, and say hello to
Klaus! The unit immediately rallied behind this zealot, and back into
the fray. It went away in 2ed 40K, but I see is now back, though the
over all game sucks. Can't really put that sort of thing into Epic, not
with out bogging things down, though it could be fun. But fluff is by
the way side with GW now (excepting maybe WFB), so I'm just glad I've got
all my older stuff to rely on. I prefer to try and find an answer to
some questions in the fluff, to see if there's a back story to an idea.
Hence, one of my arguments for allies (if in a limited format). Thus, we
get limits on Termies, and can eny Chaos cultists super-heavy IG tanks
(there is no instance of the super-heavy crews going over, not even in
the Heresy era). But there are examples of Imperial-Squat,
Eldar-imperial, and Chaos-Ork alliances, and if you feel like being
"historical", even Squat-Eldar alliances. Generally with most of these,
they should be done in multiplayer games (always interesting), and not in
two player battles, to better represent the differing objectives of each
force. The only exception as I see it is for the Imperials, as combined
forces are fairly common (SM support for IG/TG or vice versa). I'll go
over the army lists and put together a proposal this weekend. Just to
stir the pot a bit more..8)

Josh R
Minister for General Mayhem
"Don't let the bastards grind you down." Gen. Joseph Stilwell
Received on Fri Mar 31 2000 - 08:30:19 UTC