Re: [Epic] Net epic

From: <duckrvr_at_...>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 13:42:12 -0600

At 17:22 02/05/1997 +0000, you wrote:
>> From: Chris Swearingen <tall-guy_at_...>
>
>> one other major change that is lacking in2nd ed... flavor text!
>> just let a new guy read the old epic rule book flavor portions
>> and you have an avid gamer for life!
>>
>
>Your not wrong there. I used to borrow my friend's copy solely to
>read all that stuff. In fact now you've put me in the mood I might
>see if I can get him to dig it out.

It may be my English major self, but I don't much care for GWs writing.
It's blatantly targeted at male, adolescent, masturbatory power fantasies.
It's possible the older stuff is better since I haven't actually seen 1st
edition rules, but i doubt it. I've read _The Lost and the Damned_ old 40K
stuff (which was before 1st edition) and teh stuff since. It all sounds
pretty hokey to me, with occasional extraordinary exceptions.

Incidentally, I've sent several posts that never got returned to me. Are
you guys getting them? The main points were:

1) My LoB rules. Basically I said that despite the hammering I've taken
over them, in actual play (the real test) they worked and were considered
_balanced_ by a large majority of players, both using and fighting Chaos
armies. I wasn't trying to chees the unit out. (And anyone who claimed
thawks can enter at any time during the movement phase certainly hs no room
to speak, anyway.)

2) Eldar titans are mainly effective against Marines w/o allies, Chaos w/o
allies and Orks. Which, with the group I've mostly played with means
primarily Orks. Despite this, I thought the whole half-holo-field plan was bad.

3) One other big one, but I can't rememer it now.

Anyway, if no one ever saw these posts, I'd like to know.

Temp
Received on Wed Feb 05 1997 - 19:42:12 UTC