Re: [Epic] Couple Questions
Eugene Earnshaw-Whyte <eug_at_...> writes:
> > 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.
Maybe I've having a slight terminology problem. It seems
highly inappropriate, then.
> 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,
Right... So you're feel that two types of Tac Marines should
*not* be indistinguishable on the battlefield? If this is what you
mean, that's the point I'm having a lot of disagreement about. I feel
that the Tanks have just as much individual personality as two types
of Tac Marines. And while your Ork player might have felt that 75% of
the tank types sucked, he's still probably using more than a couple.
Are the two types of Tac Marines more different than the
differences betweeen Howling Banshees, Striking Scorpions, Dire
Avengers, and Fire Dragons? I don't feel that way. I'm having
problems with GW consistency, and get the impression that you're not
comprehending my point quite right.
> 'Redundant' thus seems the wrong term, to me at least.
Maybe it is. I feel that a Tac Marine is a Tac Marine, if an
Ork Tank is an Ork Tank. The two go hand in hand. Either they both
get fleshed out with individual stats, or they don't. Maybe having
separate stats for different Tac Marines isn't redundant, but it's
inappropriate at best.
Mark
Received on Sun Sep 14 1997 - 23:56:46 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:52 UTC