RE: [NetEpic ML] Implications of "epic" proportions

From: quester <quester666_at_...>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 08:26:39 -0700 (PDT)

 

>
>
> >But GW just doesn't seem to understand that you can do that
> to a game and
> >it will still make the cash you want. they seem to think
> that the only way
> >to keep a game alive is to COMPLETELY re-write it every 4
> years along with
> >all the forces available for it, making my old force obsolete.
>
> Actually, the mainstay of many 40K3 armies are still 40K2 yea but all the old good things now suck and the old sucky things are now to good
> armies...and in
> the case of 40K the rewrite was nescesary and for the the better.
> For the better ?? They took a good idea of a tactical sim-game and turned it into something were all the rules cover up any and all mistakes a player can make ,1 cover means nothing, 2 zones of fire(facing) means nothing, 3 placement of the heavy weapons means nothing, 4 placement of leaders means nothing, 5 leaders mean nothing, 6 Tanks are useless and can be killed by a hit to their rear with a troopers bere hands, ingagement range of most guns is the same as a mans movement in combat(which is the same for everything), 7 close combat is the best way to kill anything( CC should be a act of desperation in combat), 8 grenades are now undeadly mostly useless

all in all its the worst combat minis game printed to date

Necessary? yes. For the better? beg to differ on that one. They fell intoto
the same trap they did with E40K: over generalization.





---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Personal Address - Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
Received on Fri Apr 06 2001 - 15:26:39 UTC