Andy Meechan wrote:
>
> If anyone else is into different rules, I suggested some (slight)
> variants off the top of my head... the point I was getting at there
> was it's all well saying:
>
> "the system sucks"
> or
> "I want lots of weapon types"
>
> but I'd rather see:
>
> "this is where the system falls down...blah blah"
> (which is what I'd like to know)
> or
> "Here's some ideas for weapon variants"
> (which I've added to already)
>
> In other words CONSTRUCTIVE criticisms of the rules, something that's
> debatable and worthy of reading.
>
> Yes, I've probably taken this more personally than it's meant, but I
> want to see the list used constuctively. It's not worth subscribing
> to just to hear people bitch about things.
-blink-
Ah, and what do you call the Epic 41K stuff?
Yeah, I do tend to rant. I also tend to rant about Exatly where the
system falls down, IMHO, which is
1) over all weapon range ratio. This can be fixed by doubling the range
of all systems with the "Artillery" modifier. Does "Re-fighting
Waterloo" mean any thing to you?
2) The Army lists, which are both to complex in that it takes some time
to set up and army and not complex enough in that you don't have all the
options that a commander at your level should have, at the same time.
Both of these issues are addressed in my "Epic 41K project".
There is some odds and ends missing that are, in the over all sceame of
things unimportant, but those 2 are my main bitch (And of course, the
fact that "Real GW" mini's cost to much. More on fixing that latter in
the week or next week.)
Or am I missing the point of what you are saying?
--
Sillyness is the last refuse of the doomed. P. Opus
--
Geek code: GAT d-- s:-- a C+++ UL++ P+ L++ !E- W+++ N++ o K++ w+++ !o
!M-- !V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP t++ 5+ X R+++ tv+ b++++ DI++++ D G++ e+
h---(*)
r+++ y+++(**)
http://www.spellbooksoftware.com
Received on Mon Nov 10 1997 - 14:34:17 UTC