Re: [Epic] Knights(Lil' bit off topic)
Miller, Chris wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > --------> 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
The CJ rules didn't do much for me, with squats or knights. The
castellans/ crusaders should have a 3+ save, and the assault knights
should have better assaults. A little variety would be nice as well.
The squats had no character of their own in CJ; they played like
auxillery IG troops. The heavies should have been heavier, the Overlords
went from being one of the toughest units to one of the lightest, and
they lost their nerves of steel.
I think CJ will print whatever to fill up the pages; I don't think
anyone at GW played with those rules before they were printed.
I've seen good looking knight rules on this mailing list, if someone
could post them again.
Thane
Received on Wed Feb 04 1998 - 02:11:02 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:10:16 UTC