Re: [Epic] Epic 40k _at_$%!

From: <kx.henderson_at_...>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 09:39:29 +1000 (EST)

>If you were ver amazed by how many people play 40K, dont be. I have been
>around them a very long time(thats how I got started with epic) and
>quite frankly 40k is a game with poor rules formulation, thought, andf
>extra on the cheese. I actually played it a couple of times and won,
>just because I knew what the cheese of the day combo was.

For something extra on the mentality on 40K players and the good ol' cheese
thing heres something that I remember from one of the 40K lists while I was
on it (yes I play, but only occasionally).

I was scanning my messages one day and noticed a subject that said:
Cheese-NOT! Well this was intriguing so I read the message rather more
closely than the other messages I got. The person who sent it basically
said that Cheese doesn't exist in 40K. Cheese was only a term used by
people when they can't beat a particular army. Funnily enough the only 40K
armies he played were Space Puppies and Space Elves. However hard I tried
to convince him that my calling an army cheesy wasn't because I couldn't
beat it but rather that I found the rules to be unfair and unbalancing, he
still stood his ground. Cheese does exist, but is more in the way the army
is chosen rather than the list itself (although the list CAN have unfair
rules). I play 40K as I think it isn't a BAD system overall, but the way
some people play it makes it bad. They exploit the rules ambiguities and
that just makes life a real drag for all. Warzone is taking over for me at
the moment though.

>For those who played role playing games and remember all those power
>gamers and monty haulers-guess what they all play now! 40k of course.

This is all too scary and true.

>1-The rules could be thought out by Einstein and literally be the best
>thing ever created, but they changed the stands and for that it could
>rot in hell because I (and anybody with a decent size collection-and
>thats probably everyone) will not rebase everything to conform with the
>change. Those who said or even remotely think that present stands will
>be compatible are to be called naive at best, since they are being
>changed to make more money from us why should they be
>compatible-customer loyalty-BAH!!!

Well, just a point here that no one I've seen make. Jervis and Andy assured
us that our MINIATURES would still be fully compatible. Never on this list
have I seen any assurances that the way our minis are based would still be
compatible. So my reasoning is that while they may say our minis themselves
are compatible, they want us to go and re-base them. "We said the miniatures
were O.K., but we never said the way they were based would be!" is what I
think will happen.

>A- They never playtest anything then complain to the gaming community
>for not having the RIGHT ATTITUDE. Well excuse me for thinking that good
>games design is SUPPOSED to take in account possible abuses and
>therefore be made to at least minimize them. Thats how come they never
>contradict themselves(heavy sarcasm).

Now that's something I have been waiting to hear! This explains everything
I have thought about for GW's "Playtesting" in the right words. Thank you!


           "Two weeks ago I had it made.
             Two weeks ago I was dead."
          -Katchoo, Strangers in Paradise
          email: kx.henderson_at_...
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:06 UTC