Re: [Epic] Couple Questions

From: Eugene Earnshaw-Whyte <eug_at_...>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 23:39:49 -0700

Aaron P Teske wrote:

> Excerpts from Epic: 14-Sep-97 Re: [Epic] Couple Questions by E.
> Earnshaw-Whyte_at_planet
> <snip>
>
> >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.

I feel your pain... I should mention, though, that a lot of these complaints have
to do with GW, the corporate monolith, and they aren't the fault of the E40k
system. I would also like to reiterate my point that complaints concerning E40k are
almost invariably about the army lists, which are easy to revise. The only real
(and minor) complaints about the rules I've heard have to do with the system of
allocating cc hits, and the treatment of barrages, both of which are matters of
preference, not rules loopholes. There were, on the other hand, some quite real
difficulties with the SM/TL rules core; these were mostly matters of realism, and
preference, but were pretty major ones. I won't launch into my 'problems with
SM/TL' spiel, which I had pretty well memorized 3 years ago (when I tried to come
up with new house rules for CC to give Tanks a fighting chance against bikes),
because I don't think anyone_really_ wants to hear it...

>
>
> >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.
> ^_^
>

Yeah, absolutely, Ork tanks can still be used; I was referring to squats, IG close
assault troops, Mekboy Gargants, etc. All of these can still be used, but more as
proxies than anything else.

> >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.
>

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the Tank thing; Vindicators were
almost worthwhile, but don't even talk to me about Predators, or even LR's. Give me
HW infantry every time...

I'm sorry to confuse you by talking about broken units so unspecifically - the old
Epic morale rules were another cross for the Orks to bear, but that's not what I
was talking about. 'Broken' is a term used by Collectible Card Game players to
indicate a card which has the potential to be used in ways which a)are far too
powerful b) impossible to defend against or c)completely violate the spirit/intent
of the rules. When I say that SM/TL had broken units, I am referring to such things
as Wave Serpents, Dominatrixes, Bio-Titans, andWierdboy Battle Towers
(particularily before their inability to fire on the first turn became known/was
invented.) These units, and some others, were IMHO, 'broken' in the CCG sense. This
is what I mean by broken. About the only thing that kept things fair was that
pretty much all of the races had some such unit or other.

I would like to apologize for bringing up CCG's on the Epic list. Such heresy must
not go unpunished.
<whack> OW! <whack> OW!

> [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.
>

<sigh> I wish I had parents like that...."Can I spend 400 dollars on a collection
of small metal figurines covered with skulls and death iconography Dad? If I'm
lucky I'll find someone else who will help me simulate ferocious and brutal
firefights between these psycopathic killers, which will hopefully result in the
death or serious wounding of nearly every participant!"
"Of course, son."

> > 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.)

Heresy is cleansed with the purity of flame.... :)

> (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....)
>

Please allow me to offer my sincere commisseration.I thought they only pulled one.
What was the second? Which is the detailless one (I would have guessed Orks, but I
think you said you didn't play them).

> <snip stuff about the game designers being decent dudes underneath>
>
> 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.

GW will continue to put out new editions of its games as long as it shall continue
to exist. They will put out new editions whether they are required or not. Even if
they had not overhauled SM/TL completely, they would have put out a new edition of
it. This is why I don't believe the overhaul was just to 'get more money'; GW has
never needed to completely overhaul a system in order to put out a new edition of
it. If radical redesign was the corporate philosophy, we would have seen a radical
overhaul of WHFB in the fifth edition, which there was not. GW is pretty up front
about saying that if you have 4th edition, you don't really _need_ fifth (although
they will try to convince you to buy it anyway). Most of the 5th edition army books
aren't being changed at all - the High Elves are the notable exception, because
there was widespread agreement that they were at an unfair disadvantage. I don't
think corporate philosophy was behind the overhaul of E40k; I think it was behind
the _pricing_ of E40k (HOW much am I paying per stand of infantry?)GW corporate
weasels are evil incarnate, but I don't think the Game Designers are, and it was
the Game Designers, I think, who felt the SM/TL system needed a major rethinking.

>> 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'm sure they'll rerelease it, but my guess is that the rules will be mostly
unchanged. We'll have to wait and see, I guess.

>
>
> > 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_...

Fair enough, but having played both games, I personally feel that the rules of E40k
have far fewer problems than do the E40k Army Lists - the AL's have several things
that bug me, the rules very few.

Regards,
Eugene
Received on Mon Sep 15 1997 - 06:39:49 UTC