Re: [Epic] Orks with LandRaiders

From: Scott Shupe <shupes_at_...>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 12:02:54 -0400

Mike Bowen wrote:
>
> > 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.

        Well the OLD boxes came with 10 sprues, not 5, so
you actually got complete detachments of just about everything
with just 1 box. Then GW comes along with it's periodic "less
minis for more dollars", and you get half the sprues for the
same price... In any case, the game designers certainly aren't
aware of what available on the shelves and what's not (or at
least they pretend to be). Jervis and/or Andy seemed genuinely
surprised to find out that lesser daemons were no longer
available (during the TL days).

> > 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.

        Did he actually have 30 termie stands? Sheesh.
That ain't cheap (in SM or E40k).

> 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.

        Maybe for the overall army; I wouldn't limit
individual detachments like that. Generally I don't think
that would be neccessary; most players aren't going to
bring ridiculous numbers of 1 unit type to a battle.

Scott
shupes_at_...
Received on Thu Aug 28 1997 - 16:02:54 UTC