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

From: Peter Ramos <pramos1_at_...>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 12:38:18 +0000

>
> What do you anmticipate objections to? Perhaps Rumor Control can help
> confirm or deny these concers... just ask.
>
1- The stands- even if compatiblility were achieved,even if the rules
could be used with current stands normally what happens when two people
with different basing systems what to play each other? besides a lot of
arguments!

2-No cards!- What restrictions (if any) are being placed to control what
armies are built! I dont think there will be much since this would not
appeal to the 40k public who they are obviously catering to.

3-Elimination of squats and Knights- what are these people supposed to
play now? Whatever GW dictates - not likely.

> So in your example the surrounded unit will lose combat because of the
> massive bonus given by the sheer numbers of units surrounding it (not in
> base-to-base contact). Even if the commander survives the two chances in
> CC to destroy it, it must then fall back and if it can't get out of range,
> it is destroyed... no roll, no save. (Well certain units do have a 4+
> save, the army commander being one of them.)
>
In the Net Epic version I will propose morale rules that will recreate
this effect without it looking so 40k-like in its execution or borrowing
rules that obviously mimic 40k play mechanics.

Just out of curiosity,I am relatively new to the list and have not seen
your name before, who are you?(politely asked of course). I sometimes
get paranoid and think GW will plant someone to see whats going on!
(just a joke of course!).

United we stand!
Peter
Received on Fri Feb 07 1997 - 12:38:18 UTC