Re: [Epic] Orks with LandRaiders

From: Mike Bowen <mbowen_at_...>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 18:47:46 -0500 (CDT)

On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Scott Shupe wrote:

<snip value of army cards>
>
> That's not a problem with the army cards, that's
> a problem with GW's packaging scheme. Which isn't any
> better now than it was then... so it's kinda silly to
> think that there's been some improvement on that front,
> or to blame the cards (a result of the rules) because of
> the boxes (a result of GW marketing).
>

hmm. never thought of putting the blame that way. always figured
that the mismatch between cards/minis in blisters was intentional
on GWs' part. So i guess it wasn't the cards i hated, it was the
boxes.


> > i do like the custom dets for E40k, and the point system.
> > but if you had all the required minis, making a army was quick
> > in SM/TL
>
> I also like being able to customize the
> detachments, but OTOH I liked the sense of army
> organization you got with the old cards (not that it
> meant anything for anyone other than the IG).

yes, i guess i do miss some of that organization, esp with new players.
they don't have a clue on the numbers of units in a chapter.

played a guy (E40k) that had 30! stands of termies in his army.
gave me a blank look when i said "BA don't have that many termi suits"

army cards did cut down on that kind of cheeze.

E40k maybe could use a % chart, like must take 20% basic troops.

> Scott

mike
Received on Wed Aug 27 1997 - 23:47:46 UTC