Re: [Epic] Couple Questions

From: Eugene Earnshaw-Whyte <eug_at_...>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 21:30:12 -0700

Mark A Shieh wrote:

> 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.

Yeah; I didn't mean to say that I approved of knights being dropped from E40k, it's
just that this thread was started by someone asking what rules to use for some
knights he had, so I was pointing him in the right direction.

>
>
> > 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)

me too, the WBT was crazy... although it's not actually missing, because wierdboys
can be upgraded to _be_ battlewagons.

> 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.

I should point out that the several missing types of Imperial Gaurd units are missing
from WH40k as well; that is, they have deliberately been removed. Imperial Gaurd no
longer have bikes, or assault troops, or beastmen, or any of the rest in the WH40k
universe. While one can certainly regret this decision by GW, I don't think we should
complain about IG E40k forces being treated the same as they are in WH40k; one of the
major agenda's of E40k (of which I approve) is to bring E40k and WH40k closer
together, in terms of Army lists. The other removals consist of the Cap Imp, which
can probably, and quite fairly, be treated as a Leviathan (I should mention that it
sucked royally in SM/TL), and the Mekboy Gargant, which I would guess could be
treated as a vanilla Gargant.

> > 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 agree completely with your despisal of WD's habit of reprinting material from the
games, but I can completely understand why GW doesn't print anything until the
overhaul is done. They want WD to be definitive, and they _do_ _not_ want to publish
two official army lists for a single race. They seem to feel that whatever they print
should be final, to avoid confusion; the CJ is where they put half finished stuff. I
get the impression that they are expanding CJ's circulation; my local GW store has
been stocking them recently, and I live in Canada.

> > 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.
>

Well, I've made a few jabs here and there at the Squat's Tanklessness. Perhaps at
some point I will present my position in full. My basic problem is that the squats
don't seem very dwarfy. People are of course welcome to disagree.

> > 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.

If my local ork player _ever_ used Gobsmashas, Scorchas, Spleenrippas, Skullhammas,
Bonebreakas, or Bonecrunchas, I might feel the same way, but he didn't, because he
didn't think they were very good (and I don't blame him). So it's hard for me to miss
them very much.

This point has been raised a couple of times, so I would like to adress it in a bit
more depth. As far as I'm concerned, none of the vehicles mentioned above are
significantly different from the vehicles offered to the Orks in E40k. They are all
adequately represented by the units provided. Off the top of my head, the only Ork
tanks which found no place in E40k (i.e., are not virtually identical to an existing
unit) are the Braincrusha and the Mekboy Dragsta. Even that is a trifle misleading,
because as far as my gaming group is concerned, Braincrusha's in E40k use the stats
of Mekboy Speedstas with Deth Rays. This is not completely ideal, but works very
well. Dragstas appear to have been deliberately removed, and I can guess why.

The rules for Imperial Fists and Space Wolves have the status of optional rules, and
can only be used if both players agree. GW may yet publish similar rules for other
races -we'll have to wait and see.

> > 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.

It's nice that you agree with me, but I'm not sure what you're saying exactly. In
what way is E40k just as bad as Epic?

>
>
> > 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

  Well, I play E40k now, not SM/TL. I still am fond of the old system, but I think it
has a lot more problems than the new.

Regards, Eugene
Received on Sun Sep 14 1997 - 04:30:12 UTC