Nicely put Eugene...I too prefer the new version for much the same reasons.=
Equally I still enjoyed the SM/TL rules for many years but got frustrated =
by the games pace with all the additional rules for varying troop/vehicle t=
ypes...ow!..ow!...stop throwing rocks!!.
Carl
Gryphonne IV Gene-seed
http=
://freespace.virgin.net/carl.woodrow/epic/
-----Original Message-----
Fro=
m: Eugene Earnshaw-Whyte [SMTP:eug_at_...]
Sent: Sunday, September 1=
4, 1997 12:57
To: space-marine_at_...
Subject: Re: [Epic] Couple Questio=
ns
Brett Hollindale wrote:
> At 08:31 PM 10/9/97 -0800, you wrote:
> >I=
just remembered another question:
> >
> >I got a unit of knight paladins a=
nd was wondering what the old rules were
> >for them or if they translated =
into the new system at all. I want to use
> >them 'cause they look kinda c=
ool. I was thinking of making them a
> >glorified stompa type but if anyon=
e else had any suggestions...
>
> My suggestion is that you play Epic Space=
Marine (SM/TL) where rules cover
> Knights and a hundred other units that =
"are no longer important on the EPIC
> scale"...
>
> As always
> Agro
So a=
s to offer the concerned party with an alternate viewpoint, I thought I'd
d=
rop in my two cents:
The citadel journal has published excellent rules for =
knights; they are
balanced and appropriate, so far as I can see. There were=
also rules printed by
this list; I remember thinking the points were a bit=
wrong, but they are
certainly usable (with perhaps a bit of modification).=
I am not sure what these 'hundred other units' are that were abandoned by=
E40k.
The squats were not published because they are being radically overh=
auled; you
will notice that they currently have virtually no support in WH4=
0k as well. I
never liked the squat army in SM/TL, and hopefully the frustr=
ated stunty
players will be rewarded in due course with a kick-ass new army=
. The other
alleged missing units are not missing at all, they are just tre=
ated identically
to other, very similar units. I don't regret this at all; =
most similar units
were either indistinguishable in SM/TL, or else one wou=
ld just be better than
the other, meaning that only the better one ever got=
used. To see what I'm
talking about, compare scorchas with BowelBurnas, La=
nd Raiders with Leman
Russes, and Skull Hammas with Giblet Grindas. I perso=
nally prefer having a
bunch of different models treated the same, to having=
a bunch of different
models with different rules that play almost identica=
lly, or worse yet, a bunch
of different models, half of which are basically=
useless.
I liked SM/TL a lot, but it didn't take me long to decide that E=
40k was a
significant improvement in many ways. I can certainly understand =
that some of
the changes would rub some players the wrong way, and it makes=
perfect sense
that those players continue to play SM/TL (it _is_ a lot of =
fun, after all).
Weepy friendship-mongering aside, however, I am curious ho=
w many of those
players have actually tried out the new rules --an experime=
nt which, if some of
the rhetoric is to be believed, would be put on a simi=
lar level with selling
one's soul to the anti-christ for a shiny cardboard =
box (and some pretty new
models).
Eugene, a sinner who has seen the light =
(or been ineffably damned, depending on
your point of view)
- application/ms-tnef attachment: stored
Received on Mon Sep 15 1997 - 12:03:29 UTC