Re: [Epic] Hello all from an ex-lurker

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:55:58 GMT

At 11:20 PM 29/1/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>First off, I would like to say that I have been a long-time lurker (2
years!) and would like to start becoming contributor!
>
>Second, I really appreciate the ideas that ALL of you present in this email
group.... It has always been difficult to find information on Epic outside
of my play group, and gosh-dern it, it's really nice to know that there are
actually other people who play the game!
>
>Sorry, but this WILL BE a bit too long.... but I'm trying to kind of play
"catch-up" so please bear with me!
>
>WARNING!! ABOUT TO GO INTO "LONG AND WINDY" MODE
>------------------------------
>Just a super quick bit about myself to give everyone a framework:
>
>I've been watching people play Epic for about 6 years, playing for 4 and
have been semi-actively collecting/painting for 2. Some of the other players
in my group (about 6 of us) consider me a "bean counter" as I tend to stress
play/point balance a bit too much (I guess), and I have never been that
great of a miniatures painter. I have been semi-active in a variety of
games ever since high-school (9 years ago) and enjoy kicking Epic green-skin
butt.... when they aren't stomping on my face repeatedly (I think I'm 1 for
4)... eck...
>
>My general feelings on Epic -
>GOOD: Cool minis, great background, easy to play, spiffy art, weird stuff
happening is the norm! (and a pretty cool email group to boot)
>BAD: Inconsistent (sometime incoherent) rules, quirky play system, units
that range from cheez to useless, incorrect or unreasonable pt. values,
expensive components, lack of "new product" support, and (worst of all)
created by an abusive and monopolizing company
>
>all of this is IMHO of course...
>----------------------
>
>With all of that being said, I would like to voice a couple of opinions to
add to others for the Net Epic being proposed... I intend to send shorter
synopsis on each topic as they become presented by Peter, but I just wanted
to give everyone a bit of my overall impressions on the game...
>
>AAAANNNNND the rambling begins!
>
>Part 1 - Unit usefulness (I'll do different emails for each topic... I'm
not that cruel!)
>
>Has anybody ever looked at the way that GW comes up with their "unit cost"
numbers and went hmmm?
>
>* Some things just seem way too expensive for their usefulness... (900 pt.
Warlords, ANY points for Hellbores).
>* Some things seem just too cheap? (Drop pods, Mad Boys, FREE!?)
>* Some units have "over-riding" weird rules that seem to send play balance
out the window. (Ball rounds + void shields in ANY strength = no void
shields, One warp missile + 1 SHV with shields = 1 dead SHV)
>* Some units/items just don't seem worth it... (Eldar titan missile wing,
Slasher Gargants in a Gargant mob)
>* And, some units are simply better than others for the same point cost
(Marine bikes, Space Wolf bikes... Landraider, Leman Russ... hmmmm...)
>
>It disturbs me, because all of these factors tend to make players look to
fielding only those units which are considered "good", and in a point based
system there really should be no "good" units, only trade-offs in the
different factors that comprise the unit (cost, speed, CAF, guns,
breakpoint, abilities, etc.). It also tends to have a detrimental effect on
creating a "customizable" army - for instance..
>
>EXAMPLE, I want to create a very fast and mobile Marine army, so I decide
to not take any vehicles slower than speed 25 realizing that I will most
likely be sacrificing fire-power to meet this goal. I want my troops to go
in fast, so I choose Thunderhawks and drop pods for their insertion
capability to deliver all of my troops - net result, a 6,000 point game, I
have 8-10+ T-hawks and 2 Drop pod special cards (along with the troops and
few other bits)... Can you smell the cheddar? My original intentions were
reasonable, I just wanted fast stuff - but because T-hawks and the pods are
considered "to cheap for their own good" my opponent is upset (and in some
cases, rightly so)... If you look at my army and say "you should take more
variety of units to offset the cheese" - what you are basically saying is
that I take "worse" units that don't match my goals to balance my
"artificially better" ones... what is the point of that? Would my opponent
still be upset if T-Hawks cost 200 pts apiece? I don't think so!! If my
opponent has the argument that I am "taking too many units of a certain unit
type" what he or she is really saying is that "there is an accepted army
composition list that I should follow", in which case there is simply no
reason for points.
>
>The funny thing about ALL of this is that GW is really loosing out... Want
to sell termite blisters? How about hell-hounds, capitol imperialis,
hop-splat guns, squig catapults, leman russes? Make them more useful or
cheaper in the game!
>
>Anybody besides myself think that they (GW staff) simply look at the model,
determine it's "miniature coolness/co$t" level and assign a point cost on
the spot? (Hmm... that one looks neat, let's give it gobs more weapons at
the same cost as that thing we made last year)... This is just not right!
Why even have point values if the point values aren't based on anything
realistic?
>
>The worst factor that I have run into is the weird tendency for people to
always "do what is printed by GW (officially only, of course! and in such a
cheap magazine as well!)"- in no other game have I found such a fanatic
following for WYSIWYG game play and strict adherence to following unit
guidelines as printed, even if they don't make much sense. This is
especially puzzling in that the Epic game as printed has unit stats that are
dirt simple to modify (no DS II pun intended). Everyone think unit X sucks
so much? Add +2 CAF, and suddenly it's a contender.... Leman Russ cannons
just don't cut it? What if the main gun had a -3 save. instead of -2? Just
by adding 5 to 10 stinking centimeters to a vehicle's move and some people
will think it's wondrous (hmmm... Moles move at a max speed of 25cm now
huh... maybe I'll just have to paint those dang things! Great Unclean one
has a 10cm move?! - that's lightning quick!). Do you think any items will
"screw up" play balance? Does +10cm on charge really mean "win" or "lose"
the game? BZZZT! Wrong answer!
>
>I for one consider Epic a GAME, not a painting hobby - and in any fun to
play game there must be some sort of balance! You don't achieve that
balance by constantly introducing new units with their "own special rules"
or by basing a unit's point effectiveness on the "coolness" (or co$t) of the
miniature.
>
>My motto: The more miniatures that are useful in the game = the more
miniatures that will be USED in the game!
>
>More later... (must remember to breathe, must remember to breathe....)
>------------------------------
>Eric Larsen
>A thought: "Being in the best of health is simply finding the slowest
possible way to die...."


There's a lot of good thinking above...

You should write more often...

Agro
Received on Tue Feb 11 1997 - 11:55:58 UTC