Re: [Epic] Couple Questions

From: Eugene Earnshaw-Whyte <eug_at_...>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 00:36:28 -0700

> > > Wierdboy Battle Tower [is missing](but I'm actually glad in this case)
> >
> > me too, the WBT was crazy... although it's not actually missing,
> > because wierd boys can be upgraded to _be_ battlewagons.
>
> Yeah, but these things are just battlewagons with a psyker in
> them. They aren't capable of taking out a GD with enough firepower to
> spare to wipe out a SHV company in one turn on turn 2. They're just
> Battlewagons now, thankfully, not WBBTs.
>

Yes, exactly. I like them _much_ better now (although the Ork player disagrees. He
would, of course).

> > > 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.
>
> <shrug> To me, MIA is MIA, whether it's one game or two. I didn't
> think it mattered too much whether the removal was to make the units
> match revisionist fluff.

Yeah, I guess the fluff doesn't console people with a company of IG beastmen
painted up...Still, the knights being missing bugs me a lot more; it isn't like GW
is saying that they never really existed, they're just saying 'well, we didn't get
around to making them fit in the new rules'.

I guess what it comes down to is that GW feels they have a right to tinker with
their universe from time to time, and I honestly think that the gaming mavens at
the workshop are doing things with the best of intentions. I can vaugely remember
reading a piece by Jervis (I think) explaining why they had changed the IG the way
they had, and I agreed with a lot of his points. I used to use IG assault troops a
fair amount, but I don't have a big problem with their non-inclusion; it would be
ridiculous to give them to Epic IG players but not WH IG players.

They weren't taken out to 'match revisionist fluff'; they were taken out because
the designers thought that they weren't appropriate for the IG to have, any more
than it would be appropriate to give the IG boltguns (which apparently used to
happen). Thats a decision about the construction of the IG army list; whether it
was a good one is open to debate.

> > If my local ork player _ever_ used Gobsmashas, Scorchas,
> > Spleenrippas, Skullhammas, Bonebreakas, or Bonecrunchas,
>
> I only played the Ork player's Chaos force, but he tended to
> use more than one type of Khornate engine when they showed up. (About
> half the games I saw)

You are reminding me of that long discussion on the list a while back over whether
Banelords in SM/TL were any good. I applaud people who use units which are not
great in game terms because of background reasons, or something similar. However,
ideally, they should not half to do that; all the units should be balanced to begin
with. My Ork player was of the opinion that if a unit performed lousy on the
battlefield, any self respecting Ork Warlord wouldn't bother with it - so why
should he? I certainly appreciated his position. Orks had enough problems in SM/TL.

> You complain about having redundant units in Epic2. I find
> the redundant units in E40k just as annoying.
>
> Epic2 - Orky tanks, etc
> E40k - Marine Infantry, plus whatever articles they may have in the future
>

Hmm. Whatever you think of the WD article on Marine chapters, I don't really think
that 'redundant' is an appropriate summary of it's special rules for Chapters. The
thing that bugs me about redundant units is that either some never get used, thus
seeming pointless, or else they are virtually indistinguishable on the battlefield,
but use slightly different rules, which is annoying. The rules for Marine chapters
make a real difference on the battlefield, and I don't think there's _any_ danger
of one of the 'special' marine chapters being used to the exclusion of all the
others. 'Redundant' thus seems the wrong term, to me at least.

> WD articles are only optional if a copy of the WD can't be
>found. They're considered official. Otherwise, units like the

> Firelord and Doomwings (Tzeentch engines) couldn't be used between the
> period the rules were released and Titan Legions was released. And
> the Ordinatus vehicles are E40k only...WD is where GW published rules
> errata and small supplements.

> Mark

  I was under the impression that they specifically said in the article that the
chapter rules were optional. Perhaps I am mistaken - I don't have a copy with me.

Regards, Eugene
Received on Sun Sep 14 1997 - 07:36:28 UTC