Re: [Epic] Couple Questions

From: Mark A Shieh <SHODAN+_at_...>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 17:27:24 -0400 (EDT)

Eugene Earnshaw-Whyte <eug_at_...> writes:
> The citadel journal has published excellent rules for knights;

        Which means that for the majority of people and for all
tournaments, usable knight rules don't exist. CJ is a magazine that
prints house rules. If they cared at all, it would be a WD article at
the very least, and in the actual rule books otherwise.

> I am not sure what these 'hundred other units' are that were abandoned by E40k.

        Nope, not a hundred. But some of the MIA off the top of my
head are
IG Assault
IG Jetbikes
IG Bikes
IG Beastmen
IG Cap Imp
IG Knights (all of them)
Eldar Knights
Eldar Exodites (can't have both, but one would be nice)
(Is the Hellbore still around?)
Ork Mekboy Gargant
2 of 3 Marine drop pod types
All of the squats except the traded Leviathans. (About 20 types of units?)
Wierdboy Battle Tower (but I'm actually glad in this case)

MIA in my book but not by all are
Striking Scorpions/Howling Banshees/Dire Avengers/Fire Dragons
Eldar psyker HQs
Ork tanks

I'm sure this isn't a complete list. It's not a hundred unit types,
but it's not a handful either.

> The squats were not published because they are being radically
> overhauled;

        And until the overhaul is done, how hard is it to put a 4-5
page army list in WD? It would beat the hell out of reprinting stuff
in the Ork Army Book. I already know how my shamans work, thank you.

> I never liked the squat army in SM/TL,

        I don't see this as a good reason to drop the army.
Especially since, from all accounts I've seen, you're in the minority.

> The other alleged missing units are not missing at all, they are
> just treated identically to other, very similar units. I don't
> regret this at all;

        I regret this quite a bit. Why did the Orks lose so many tank
types, while the Space Wolves and the Imperial Fists have Tac marines
that are so different? This lacks consistency.

> I personally prefer having a
> bunch of different models treated the same,

        I like this too. But E40k is just as bad as Epic in this respect.

> I liked SM/TL a lot, but it didn't take me long to decide that E40k was a
> significant improvement in many ways.

        Can't argue here. It fixed a few dozen problems, and has a
few dozen new problems. But I'm wary of calling it better, and you
seem to be as well.

Mark
Received on Sat Sep 13 1997 - 21:27:24 UTC