Re: [Epic] RGMW Newsgroup.

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 09:53:39 +0100 (MET)

I can't reply to all the flames I got (actually I will voluntarily
refrain...) but I chose this one as the most appropriate:

(I have a very thick skin and I haven't taken any of the flames personally,
and I don't intend any of this personally either. Please accept it in that
spirit...)


At 07:05 PM 23/2/98 -0600, someone wrote:
>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.


Yes, "in my opinion" - but are you suggesting that you agree that "thought
is evidently missing from the news group" or that "E40K was disliked because
it required thought" or both?

I haven't actually commented on the amount of "thought" I find on the news
list. But the fact is I hang in because there is the occasional gem (light
bulb?) out there...
 
As to the assertion that "E40K was disliked because it required thought"
nothing COULD be further from the truth! Do you actually believe that folks
who dislike E40K believe that it requires thought? (None of the guys I see
at the E40K depreciation society think that - believe you me!)

People who dislike E40K do so for a number of reasons - including the idea
that E40K requires LESS thought, but only people who like E40K will suggest
that it requires MORE thought.

Have I laid that on thick enough to get the point across?

The statement that (and I quote Steve):
"I was actually thinking that e40k was disliked because it required thought"
is incorrect and (I paraphrase me): "could not 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...)
>
>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.


You may possibly by correct in what you say. 1st edition is actually before
my time, but I do have a copy of what I always thought was the original
space marine rule book (hence "first edition"). It is predominantly black
in colour with a chaos eye on the back cover. There are only two races
available - Marines, and Traitor (Chaos) Marines. There is absolutely no
difference in any facet of their armies, command structure or points
costings. (It may be dull, but at least it's fair...) This is the rule
book that I and numerous others on the list refer to as "1st edition". This
is the rule book I was refering to above and I assure you that you have only
two race choices...


>
>>
>> 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.


I haven't been lobotomised either, but I know what happens when you get that
done and I think I can safely comment about how little I think of the
procedure...


>Tactics in 2nd ed "Leap on objectives Hold".


I can't actually gaurantee that you haven't played any SM/TL, but I can
gaurantee that you wouldn't win any games in my circle of acquaintences with
that as your only tactic... :)



>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.


So quantity is better than quality? If you have a Rolls Royce, do you
really need 155 Fords?


>You don't seem to play many real war games either.


I can't resist commenting on the unlikely concept of a "real" war game...


>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.


So if you're assigned to gaurd the president and someone shoots him but you
kill all his friends you win?

I don't know what the objectives signify, but I do know that with the rules
of the game being such as they are, you had better have a PLAN to hold your
objectives at the least, and if you have a PLAN to take the enemy's
objectives you are in with a big chance...


>Particularly if you think this leads to "tactics".


Actually, I _DO_ equate "planning" with "tactics". It seems to me that the
alternative is to "hope for the best", and while that _is_ actually a
legitamate "tactic" (by my understanding of the term) it's not a very
impressive one...


>
>>
>> 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.


My mistake. I agree that there is absolutely nothing that _I_ actually like
about E40K
(well, some of the figures are OK - but not at the price of my immortal soul!)
but from reading stuff on this list I thought that I had accurately quoted a
number of folks opinions.

If you are suggesting that the best thing about E40K is that when you play a
game it is over quickly... (Whose case are you argueing exactly? :-)

E40K is like banging your head against a brick wall - it's so good when it
stops...
E40K is like blowing your brains out - at least its over quickly...
E40K is like ___________________________________________ (make up your own
E40K joke...)



>And yes I want war games to
>resemble real war, less the personal bleeding thing.


We agree on the personal bleeding thing, but "realism" strikes me as an odd
thing to be looking for in a science FICTION game. Me, I'll settle for "fun".


>
>
>
>> 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.


I have to concede that your mind is much more open than mine. I will never
play E40K - ever! (Unless something mundanely important is somehow involved)
But I'm sure that this surprises no one ;-)

Agro
Received on Tue Feb 24 1998 - 08:53:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:10:23 UTC