---"Miller, Chris" wrote:
> OK, I've wanted to ask this for a while:
> Recently there was a raging thread on usenet, crossing over
> .warhammer, historical, etc miniature and boardgame groups about
> is the hobby?" - vague question which was later clarified into "how
> important are the miniatures vs the game?"
OK, here goes:
I will make it clear right from the beginning that I HATE it when
play with unpainted minis. I will never play with anything myself
it is at least undercoated, and even then I'll take painted troops in
of them, even if it would prove to be tactically unsound. To me, when
someone playes with fully unpaintd troops I feel that that person is
and, in way, "cheating". I mean, if I bother painting my troops to
good on the tabletop, I expect my opponents to show the same
But at the same time, I still feel it is the game that you are
the minis. This is one of the reasons that I try to pick the most
force I possibly can when I play a game of Epic. All the exotic "I
first and win" stuff dopes not interest me at all- I get REALLY pissed
when GW tries to sell their products by calling them "super powerful,
kick ass troops". What's the point of choosing troops and playing a
game if you need super powerful troops to do it with? One of these
days I'll play a game of Epic with nothing but tactical troops; no
psykers, and maybe one or two captains. And I'll probably win,
because I am one that believes in firm tactics, not powerful troops.
Maybe that's why I _love_ playing chess, and other games where
chance plays little if no part in the outcome of the game.
That's my 3 cents' worth ('cos it's worth more than the ordinary 2
"90cm is short ranged?!? ...you must be an IG player."
Scott Shupe, 25/7/97
Visit my Epic homepage at
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com
Received on Sat Aug 16 1997 - 02:14:53 UTC