Re: [Epic] Couple Questions

From: Aaron P Teske <Mithramuse+_at_...>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 01:50:17 -0400 (EDT)

Excerpts from Epic: 14-Sep-97 Re: [Epic] Couple Questions by E.
Earnshaw-Whyte_at_planet
[Snip my rants vs. GW]
> 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.

Quite true, that, but I guess I'm seeing E40K as a symptom of that
corporate culture... not really relevant to rules questions, I guess, so
I'll try & keep it quiet. (Though I do normally do so... I mostly
chit-chat on about the old background. ^_^ )

>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...

I will admit to curiosity, since I don't recall hearing it; I certainly
don't remember you being on the ML until recently. You do have a point
about the bikes, though, and GW's drive-by shootings have been something
I've had trouble seeing, but it was not, IMO, a rules problem as I'd
define it. (Ie, ambiguity or outright conflict. It might not have made
much *sense*, but it was quite clear.)

[snicker-snack]
> 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...

Predators? I always thought... um, well, we disagree, basically. ^_^
(I do see your point, but then I also worry about background and
appropriateness when assembling armies....)

> 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.

<grin>

>'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.

Ah, I see what you mean now. Even so, though, many of those units
(especially Eldar ones, IIRC) were toned down in or after TL, though I
think some of that was the Primarch's Q&A. I still hold that a simple
addendum with official clarifications (ie, Wave Serpents vs. <these
things> does <this>) would have done wonders, but that's beating a dead
horse at this point....

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

'S OK, I think. They do get mentioned every so often. Besides, I find
the coating on the cards makes them (the cards) especially useful as
disposable paint palettes; the paint doesn't soak in right away, so you
have time to do some mixing and then get the paint onto the figure. ^_^

[snip]
> > > 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.... :)

Well, given that the idea behind my Space Marine Chapter (if I ever get
around to painting more than some vehicles) is that they are one of the
Errant Chapters, and thus haven't been in (material) contact for a few
thousand years, it all works out OK. ^_^

> > (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?

They pulled Squats and Knights, which are my first two armies, though I
can't say I ever finished painting enough Knights. However, I did have
some nice heraldry for each of the detachments, squad leaders, the
Baron, etc. that a friend drew up for me, as well as a fairly detailed
paint scheme laid down that was based off a RPG I play in. (Stellae
Cognitae, if you've ever heard of it. I understand it's gotten some
recognition, anyway. There's a link off my home page.)

>Which is the detailless one (I would have guessed
> Orks, but I think you said you didn't play them).

My Titan Legion. Again, I'm a victim of my own penchant for planning
and detail; I have a fairly sizable file containing the weapons
loadouts, Titan names, *Princeps* names, and paint schemes for three
Imperators, a dozen Warlords, nine Reavers, and eight Warhounds. I'd
done some (limited) tactical studies on how to distribute the Titans to
support each other with the intent of making a *true* Titan legion, one
that did not require any infnatry support. GW then went and stripped
everything out from underneath me. Given what I put into it and my use
of a large variety of the weapons, I'm more than a little underwhelmed
at what Titans are now. The range differential (and the corresponding
ease with which infantry can close assualt a Titan) doesn't help either.

Actually, if you want a 'realism' point (like bikes in SM2), that's one
for ya, IMO. It is *far* too easy to close with the enemy, without
getting shot at.

[slice'n'dice]
> 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.

OK, good point.

>If radical redesign was the corporate
> philosophy, we would have seen a radical overhaul of WHFB in the fifth
> edition, which there was not.

Yeah, but something I'm kinda curious is how much changed from 3rd into
4th in WHFB. I mean, SM2 to TL is argueably a redesign, though less so
than from 4th to 5th edition WHFB.

>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.

Just to point out, I thought that the magic rules were being overhauled
(though again, agreement was they needed it) with a corresponding
overhaul of Chaos, and IIRC the Empire army book is in for overhaul as
well. Yes, it's true that the High Elves needed a bit of a push, but
again it's the power creep -- more powerful releases to sell more
(newerr, more expensive) minis. Something to ponder: are the game
designers including this power creep of their own volition, or is it
something they are being told to do/forced to do? I prefer to think the
latter, but that doesn't speak well of GW as a whole... not that much
does. :P

[clank]
> 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.

Aye, aye.

> > > 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.
>
> 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.

OK.

                    Aaron Teske
                    Mithramuse+_at_...
Received on Mon Sep 15 1997 - 05:50:17 UTC