Re: [Epic] Tyranids vs Tyranids

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 14:56:33 +0200 (MET DST)

At 02:02 PM 29/8/97 -0500, "J. Michael Looney" <mlooney_at_...> wrote:
>Andy Skinner wrote:
>
>> Speaking of controversy, it occurred to me that I never really
>> understood all the people leaving after Epic 40K came out. I
>> kinda miss some of those folks, and recently saw someone make
>> a wistful post about this list on the Full Thrust list. I'm
>> glad Agro and Sauron1 are still here, with the occasional 2nd ed
>> comment, though if I remember correctly they were relatively
>> recent to the list before Epic 40K.
>
>I was on the list pre E40K, I just don't worship 2nd Ed. In fact I
>think that it is GW worst set of rules. E40K, on the other hand, is
>their best.


I wouldn't dream of disagreeing, but I think I will have to suggest that we
must have enormously different criteria that pertain to "best" and "worst".

I guess it would be fair to say that I _DO_ worship 2nd Edition ;-)

Of course I'm not missing it because I'm one of those extremely stubborn
individuals who will continue to play SM/TL until I get sick of it, not quit
because some GW parasite tells me that they have decided to squeeze a new
market so the game I play is now obsolete...

Best thing about SM/TL - "flavour". From the 1st Edition "fluff" that still
gives me goose bumps to the literaly hundreds of different units and their
unique capabilities. (I think it's pretty realistic for an enemy general to
be unsure of the exact capabilities of every enemy unit... Of course a good
general gets to know his enemy and everyone from Tsun Tzu to Lex Luthor have
suggested that "knowlege precedes victory - ignorance, defeat.)

(I've said before - and I stand by the claim - that there is actually no
"special rule" or interaction of "special rules" that is not explicitly
covered by the rules.)

Worst thing about E40K - where do I start??? Let's ignore the whole
repugnant concept behind E40K and confine conversation to the rules...

Worst thing about E40K - "cheesy number crunching". For 20 pts I can get...
and for +2pts I can get... and for 27pts I can... If I have detachments
containing x of these and y of these, with some z's for this and some of
these for this...

         
Anyway, you pushed the button, and I responded predictably...
Agro




>
>Not that there were not good parts to SM/TL and the E40K dosn't have
>it's own flaws...
>
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC