Re: [Epic] Couple Questions

From: Aaron P Teske <Mithramuse+_at_...>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 19:07:21 -0400 (EDT)

Excerpts from Epic: 14-Sep-97 Re: [Epic] Couple Questions by E.
Earnshaw-Whyte_at_planet
> Well, depending on how you look at it, the entire Wargaming hobby, is an
> attempt to extort money from the wargaming fraternity; I mean, companies
> exist to sell product, right?

Very true, but I don't think the word "extort" is used in reference
companies other than GW. At least, I haven't seen it used against other
companies, and this is not the first time I've seen it in reference to
GW.

>It's pretty standard to periodically come out
> with new editions of an old favorite that purport to fix the problems with
> the old version (Star Fleet Battles is a classic example). E40k is just
> different in that the overhaul was much more thourough, so much so that it is
> almost (but not entirely) a different game.

True 'nuff, in this case, but many people (myself included) think that
EPIC itself is a fine game, and some simple *official* clarifications on
GW's part would have cleaned up most of the arguements. (Note I'm not
really saying they would've had to make sense, but it could've been
done.) Instead, we get a totally new rules set, new errors in the
books, new arguements, and it's all a pretty big mess. Throw in GW's
continuous price increases, and their refusal to just sell the rulebooks
(I don't *want* more bloody Orks!), and it's a downright pain in the
arse.

>The main continuity between the
> two systems is that you can generally use the old models with the new system;
> which is why it bugs people so much when you can't.

Actually, you usually can; I don't really see anything stopping Ork
players from using the more specialized Orky tanks as straight
Battlewagons, but then (as you may have guessed) I'm not an Ork player.
^_^

>Pretty much all of the
> things that I disliked about the old system (tanks sucking, broken units,
> etc) were fixed in E40k, which is why, IMHO, the upgrade/revision was useful
> and justified.

Tanks sucking? Hmm, I know some of them (Leman Russ) weren't worth
their points cost compared to others, but most of the tanks did do what
you paid for, IMO. And I'm not sure what was wrong with broken units,
either, and E40K still has 'em. The blast markers are a nice addition,
but that's also right out of other wargames so I'm not that impressed.

[snip]
>The pricing on the new models is aggravating -
> particularily the plastics. Stands of Tyranid infantry now cost more than
> $1.00 Canadian, which is absolutely nuts. Does GW really think the 13 year
> olds have that much disposable income? Maybe they do....

Actually, I think it's usually the parents GW is targetting, but whatever.

> The undoubted truth, however (question it not, heretics!) is that the new
> metal is _really_ nice. Ork Buggies, Imperial Predators, the T-Hawk gunships,
> you name it, are all very pretty indeed.

True, I guess. Very detailed, anyway, which is nice for the painters,
but... I dunno. I liked the Rhino varients back when it was *obvious*
they were Rhino varients, and while the new THawk is very impressive,
there's something about the flying brick that just pulls at me. (Yes,
believe it or not, I'd rather field flying bricks than either of the
other two THawk models.)

Also, the new white metal is a little annoying; it's nowhere as easy to
work wiht as GW has claimed, and from what I've seen of it long, flat
sections tend to warp. One guy at the local store opened up his
Thunderhawk and basically couldn't assemble it because the pieces were
so out of joint. He got it straightened out, but it wasn't too easy and
he marred the detail a bit.

>GW models are very, very expensive,
> but the annoying thing about GW (and the reason I am still involved in this
> hobby) is that you get value for the cost. With a few exceptions, the new
> models are much, much nicer than the old. I certainly can understand if you
> disagree, but GW is betting that you won't.

Yes, well, see above. <shrug>

(Though them pulling two of my three armies and making the third
detailless may have something to do with my opinions as well, I will
admit....)

> > Best of intentions? Sure, if you own shares in GW and get a share of the
> > profits.
>
> Listen, the guys who designed E40k are the same guys who design all the cool
> GW stuff. It's them we have to thank for the whole WH/WH40k universe.
I can't > believe you seriously think that Andy Chambers, Jervis, Rick
Priestly, and
> the rest, redid SM/TL only to squeeze more dollars.

No, but you should also keep in mind they don't make the policy for the
company. While GW may have started as a gaming company under (I think)
Rick Priestly -- he's the one attached to most of the older, more
interesting background articles -- it certainly is not such today.

>If radical redesign is
> corporate policy at big, bad GW, why haven't we seen a radical overhaul of
> WHFB or WH40k? The workshop has to keep putting out games, agreed, but
> because WHFB works pretty well as is, it's not getting changed much.

Well, then why did they do a complete re-release of WHFB for 5th
edition, and have a rework of the magic box set in the works, and are
reworking all the old army books to make them more powerful and
competative with the newer army books? GW's 'power creep' to sell more
(expensive) books is as near a truth as I think you'll get in this hobby.

And, for the record, everything I've heard from players who have been
with WHFB since 3rd edition is that 3rd edition was GW's best release of
WHFB to date. 5th edition comes in second (they made lots of mistakes
in 4th, apparently) but GW definitely took a game the players loved and
then changed it.

>SM/TL,
> in the opinion of the GW design gang (and I agree with them) had some big
> problems, so they overhauled it. We might see some tweaking in the future,
> and at some future date (Khorne forbid) the Epic line could, I suppose,
> be dropped entirely, but I think we've seen the last big overhaul of
the Epic > Rules; the new ones seem pretty good.

Bet you that EPIC will have a major overhaul, probably within 5 years,
definitely within 10. GW's higher-ups don't care one whit if they've
got good rules; a good ruleset, after all, will only sell once to one
person, while one person who buys a re-release will get them money, even
if they don't play it.

> I have noticed that critique of E40k is mostly centred around the army
lists, > not the rules.

Hmm, probably, yeah. But the army lists are a quick & easy thing to
point at as a change, while a rules analysis takes a fair bit more work.
 Also, since I haven't played the game I don't feel *right* pointing at
the rules as a problem.

                    Aaron Teske
                    Mithramuse+_at_...
Received on Sun Sep 14 1997 - 23:07:21 UTC