Re: [Epic] RGMW Newsgroup.

From: Chris Miller <ironstar_at_...>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 20:59:52 -0600

>> Sorry Steve, but nothing could be further from the truth.
>>
>In your opinion.
--------> Uh-Oh, Agro ignites the version war again...
>
>> 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.

---------> FOOSH!
Yes yes they were both fine. 1st ed was damn near unplayable with any
sizeable amount of points as most infantry squads and vehicles had a
multitude of weapons available - and you thought the titan weapons from 2nd
ed were redundant and time consuming! 2nd ed became rather intimidating to
new players even with TL as there were so many places to look for rules. OK,
they both had problems.
>
>>
>> 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".
>
--------> OOOhhhh! "Which one uses more tactics?" This is a BS argument -
both are artificial constructs allegedly simulating tactical conflict 38,000
years in the future. Both set artificial constraints upon the participants
based on arbitrary decisions by a comittee of game designers. Both have
imperfect points systems, both have several known behaviors which result in
better performance than a random pattern of actions. Fine. you can argue
that one better simulates modern warfare, you can argue that one is
simulating Napoleonic-era conflict, but no one here is really qualified to
argue that one better simulates warfare in the future as none of us has been
there which is the point of the game...(and if you say you have, that's
another thread.)

         You can prefer one as a game, but realism flies out the window
about the time the gargants march onto the board, and since the rules are
built to include them, by definition either one's realism is open to
question.
>>
>> 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.

---------> Not one edition of Epic has had great marketing , and that's in
the larger sense of marketing as in format presentation, etc. Basically the
organization, type and number of the boxes has sucked too. E40K almost got
it right in the packaging department (all the stats in one box) but the rest
of it has just been bleah!
   As for realism, how do you judge realism? Based on what you've
experienced personally? On what you've learned about history? Neither one
applies specifically to this game (either edition). We can judge a
historical or even a modern wargame by whether it creates results which
correspond to reality. I can't tell you if any edition of Epic, or WH40K, or
WHFB for that matter is realistic, because I have no real-world basis to
compare it to (that's especially regarding magic, psykers, shuriken
catapults, orks, tyranids, etc.) I imagine a warrior from the middle ages
might think we were oversimplifying hand to hand combat, leading to
unrealistic results.
   As a game, they both work, along with all of the other games mentioned.
Again, it boils down to preference for the aspects which game emphasizes.
SM1 was big on extreme detail for weapons and systems damage, Sm2 was very
much into individualization of units and showing very small differences
between them. E40K is more into formations, rather than individual units.
they all do some things well, but they are different things, and the one
which fits better with what you like will be the one you gravitate towards.

>
>> 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.
>

-----------> they're both shuffling toy soldiers around a tabletop. Paint it
any way you want, but if you're thinking that beating the 15 year old from
down the street or the 29 year old loudmouth from Texas makes you a great
general, let me awaken you from slumber..."challenge" is what you make of it
as is "fun". "Tactics" is fine to discuss within each edition, but they are
completely different games. Is Battleship a realistic naval simulation? Is
it a fun game for some people? How about Monopoly? How about Illuminati as a
simulation of office politics? Epic is more complicated than many games,
true, but guess what?More rules don't neccessarily make it more realistic
_or_ a better game. ASL is damn complicated, and apparently produces many
results which correspond to reality - it's a bitch as a game to play for a
few hours of fun, though. Battletech is far more playable, but the physics
do have problems, so it's less realistic. Star Fleet Battles is a game
where it's really impossible to judge a level of realism as the subject
matter is entirely fictional, yet it's about as complex as ASL. Why would
anyone put up with that amount of rules when realism is impossible to
determine? Some people just like it complicated...doesn't make it right or
wrong, it's just different.
     (and yes, people talking about realism in AD&D and other games drives
me up the wall too. 'That's not realistic" is guaranteed to prompt a big
time response)

Chris Miller
Received on Tue Feb 24 1998 - 02:59:52 UTC