Miller, Chris wrote:
> -----> I'm trying to respect the sanctity of your rant, but with
> multiple posts on this same thing (not all from you) it's beginning to
> get a little tiresome to read this same stuff over and over. In case
> anyone is wondering, WH40K (2nd ed) IS the source for E40K and
> speculations etc are a VALID way to spend bandwidth on this list (cf.
> Squats, eldar aspects and other things people think are missing). The
> E40K _rules_ may not cover 5 termies per raider, but many people on this
> list play both games, and if you play Marines in WH40K and always see 5
> termies per LR, then coming to Epic and finding 10 is a bit of a
> /surprise. That's why several places mention "you can change the rules
> amongst your friends" etc. Epic does not stand alone, it's built upon
> the WH40K game & background, and even the OLD Epic game, so many people
> come in with a set of expectations based on these. Borderline flames
> from other list members are not neccessary. Pointing out that it ain't
> the rule in E40K is fine, but multiple posts on 40K holdover rules is an
> overreaction.
<semi-rant>Epic DOES stand alone. You can play epic with out EVER looking at a
WH40K product if you feel that way. The Epic game SYSTEM has ZERO in common with
the Warhammer 40K game SYSTEM.
</semi-rant>
The Epic 40K rules and Army list are written in such a way as to allow you to
"obey" the WH40K rules, if you so wish. As an example, you can, quit legally buy
1 Land Raider, as a mount, per Terminator squad. Quite legal, no problems.
Note that you could not do this with Space Marine 2nd ed, where 2 termies got 1
land raider, sorry that is what is on the card, thank you very much.
You can, if you wish, always shoot at the closest detachment, if that is what you
want to do.
However just because YOU do it that way does NOT mean that the person you are
playing against MUST do it that way. If you want to design your Dark Angels to
have 1 LR per Terminator stand, that's fine. Don't bitch if I don't do it that
way and don't try and tell me that because another set of rules, for an unrelated
game system (please note the difference between game system and game back ground)
that I must do it that way also.
> As an aside, RT fluff was and is mostly cooler than the new stuff, but
> the rules, backgrounds and races have changed a great deal in 40K 2nd ed
> from RT concerning details, and while 2nd ed is what the current epic
> was based on, E40K doesn't fit well with the RT stuff (like all the IG
> changes) so while we can come up with ways to "make it fit", saying the
> new stuff is "wrong" is , well, wrong, cause it fits the current version
> of 40K.
Trust me, I KNOW about the problems trying to fit RT era stuff into Epic 40K.
What do you think the E41K project is about?
> And for those of you still part of the "RT is Better" cult, let
> me remind you (having played both versions since they came out) the
> vehicle rules now ain't perfect, but the old ones were absolutelyhorrible (BOTH
> older ones)
No version of Warhammer 40K has dealt with vehicles worth a damn. Most games
designed to deal with small groups of infantry have problems with AFV, so that is
not really a problem with rules design as such, just that one of scope and scale.
I have found that games designed around AFV can add dis-mounted infantry into the
mix easier than games designed around grunts can add in tanks, just for what it is
worth, so in this case this is NOT a general slam on GW's game design folk. (not
that _I_ would _ever_ do that....)
Received on Fri Oct 10 1997 - 22:58:39 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:57 UTC