Re: [Epic] RGMW Newsgroup.

From: J. Michael Looney <mlooney_at_...>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 19:05:17 -0600

Brett Hollindale wrote:
>
> 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.
>
In your opinion.

> 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...)

Not true in either case. In the case of E40K, while it is true that the
number of nit picky details has been lowered it is hardly homogenous
gruel. In the case of 1st Ed, it had Space Marines, Imperial Guard,
Orks, Eldar, Squats, Knights, Eldar Knights and Chaos. The only thing
it DIDN'T have was 'Nids.

>
> 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.

You have not played E40K, this much shows. Tactics in 2nd ed "Leap on
objectives Hold". Epic 2nd ed has 1 (one) type of game you can play.
"Capture the flags", that's it. There are 155 types of games "right
out of the box" in E40K. You don't seem to play many real war games
either. The idea of being able to "win" a game, regardless of what is
going on in the battle, because you happen to be the last person to get
close to a random point on the battle field is just silly. Particularly
if you think this leads to "tactics".

>
> 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?
>

I'll give you that marketing sucks. I'll give you quick. I will not
give you simple or easy. It is neither. And yes I want war games to
resemble real war, less the personal bleeding thing.



> 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...
This I will give you sound like fun. I may do just that. Of course I
will also see what happens when I do the same thing with E40K. I know
what will present the greater "real" tactical challenge, vs "game"
challenge.
Received on Tue Feb 24 1998 - 01:05:17 UTC