RE: [Epic] Knights(Lil' bit off topic)

From: Miller, Chris <CMiller_at_...>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:17:07 -0600

> > >
> > --------> Well, it's better than "Dark Future"...
>
> But DF was fun it's own way...
> Ans as with most GW-games - it's not the mechanics that is brilliant;
> it's the setting...
> (Ever tried 'Mud-Bang Racing'?) ;)
>
Yeecch. I tried to like it, wanted to like it, but having played Car
Wars , it just wasn't that good. I expected a little less detail (hey it
is a miniatures game) but it just didn't "click" for me. Talisman was
the same way - looked neat, sounded neat, played boring every time I
tried it.
        As for Setting over mechanics, GW ain't the only one. Palladium
is making tons-o-bucks (TM) off of "Rifts" despite a complete lack of
organization and horrible mechanics. The artwork is pretty slick, and
the setting & ideas are just wild. Yes, I've bought damn near every book
- we all have our guilty pleasures...

> And the question about 'niggets i see is answered elsewere...
>
The CJ rules aren't bad just not as colorful as the old ones to me.
Luckily I didn't buy into knights bigtime, so it didn't sting too
much...
Ork Clan differences...that's what I miss...and those stinkin' marines
have published rules for different chapters. Bah! Is there really MORE
of a difference between, say, Blood Angels and Space Wolves then between
Evil Sunz and Goffs?

Chris Miller
Received on Tue Feb 03 1998 - 22:17:07 UTC