RE: [Epic] Re: [EPIC] Which do YOU like better?

From: Miller, Chris <CMiller_at_...>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 10:13:46 -0500

>I'd just like to point out, how do you call E40K 'third edition'. Part if the
>problem with
>E40K is that it is NOT another edition of Space Marine, it is an entirely
>diffrent game.
>The only thing left from SM/TL is the names of units/weapons. Personally, I
>think many people would have been happier with a edition that just fixed
>broken unts/rules like you said. It's just that the E40K rules bear no
>resemblence other than nomenclater to the previous editon.(I've never played
>first ed, so I don't know much about it, but I hear it was more like SM/TL
>than E40K. It's one of those things I'd like to play, just for the heck of
>Kinda like a small first ed 40K game is fun.)
>"Your incorrect assumptions are threefold."
>"You assume law still reigns in the Five Galaxies"
>"You assume that we would be bound by precedents and precepts from the last
>10 million years."
>"But your most incorrect assumption of all is to assume that we care."
> -David Brin, Infinity's Shore

------> People said the same thing when SM 2nd ed came out.
I call it "3rd ed"because it's the third set of rules from GW written
for those umpty-jillion miniatures I have scattered about. I would
have been happier with a cleaned-up coherent set closer to what we had
before, but even then people would have been unhappy
as soon as they realized what was now official did not match the house
rules they had worked out. That may be one small
factor in not redoing the old - there was so much wiggle-room in the old
rules that people hashed things out til they were
happy. If they had actually defined all those quirks, a lot of players
would have been about as upset as they are now. At least this way,
they're starting fresh. It's not what I would call the best path, but
it's the one they took.

Chris Miller

Received on Wed Jul 30 1997 - 15:13:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:42 UTC