On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Jason Stephensen wrote:
> >Some notes from the 40K mailing list, from an Outrider:
> >
> >>>I'm very interested. I've always liked the Epic-scale models, but I
> >>>wasn't interested in the rules system. If Epic 40K is much closer to
> >>>40K rules, as GW has stated, I'll play.
> >
> >The words of some random 40k player (doesn't like Epic rules but likes 40k
> >rules?!?). It is people like this that I bet GW is hoping to cash in on,
> >with the (relatively) small Epic crowd being tossed aside to make room for
> >40k converts.
>
> I'm always amazed at the number of people that love the 40K rules. I mean
> they suck, they really suck. Making epic into minnie 40K seems to be their
> goal at the moment.
No one has said the rules will be like 40k. As far as I can tell they're
more different from the 40k rules than the original Epic were.
> >>In some ways is got more abstract - Eldar aspects are just aspects. You
> >>can make stands of close-assault aspects & combine banshees, scorpions etc
> >>or support aspects with reapers & dragons.
>
> OK, so what does this mean? Scorpions and Banshees are the same? 40K people
> aren't going to like that.
Exactly... they're talking 40k because soooo many more people play 40k
than Epic... if they can get converts, they make more money.
>From what I've seen, the new Epic40k is different from 40k, and
different than Epic. A lot oof things are abstracted, and a lot of combat
is now rolling pools of dice in detachment vs. detachment fights. Not as
much three tanks +3 to hit, roll armor saves at +4, +4 +5. Roll each
stand in CC. Nope, it's all gone.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul R. Tobia _O_
"What good is science if no one |
gets hurt?" - Chrome Dome
http://falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~heresy
Received on Thu Feb 06 1997 - 04:47:07 UTC