Re: [Epic] RGMW Newsgroup.

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 22:49:56 +0100 (MET)

At 01:00 PM 23/2/98 PST, you wrote:
>
>> I honestly believe Epic40k is an attempt to return to the more free
>form
>>structure of 1st ed. Then again, I play Epic2nd !
>>
>I was actually thinking that e40k was disliked because it required
>thought, which is evidently missing on the newsgroup.
>Steve


Sorry Steve, but nothing could be further from the truth.

E40K has dropped all of the special rules that only a general with a brain
like a battle computer could keep track of in favour of a flavouless
porridge of homogenous gruel... (It is very like first edition where
everyone had the same units because you had a coice of Marines or Traiter
Marines. The only differences were in the unit colours...)


Objectives have been rendered irrelevant in favour of a shootfest (sounds
not unreasonable in a war game, but it's not exactly conducive to
"tactics"...) It would be fair to paraphrase Patton with "victory goes to
the side with the biggest (in this case "baddest") battalions". Army choice
is about it as far as "tactics" go.


E40K is disliked because of the marketing strategies and because it has
removed flavour from the game. It is liked because it is "simple" "quick"
and "easy". Some people have suggested that it more accurately simulates
real warfare (and Patton seems to agree) but is this a good thing in a
wargame set in thye year 40,000?


If you want a real challenge, try playing a dozen games of SM/TL using the
random army generation charts posted a few weeks ago. Winning a game with
what are usually considered "useless" units IS a tactical challenge I assure
you...


Agro
Received on Mon Feb 23 1998 - 21:49:56 UTC