Re: [Epic] Orks in various rules set

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 07:46:15 +0100 (MET)

At 09:24 AM 1/3/98 -0600, you wrote:
>> Good God! Don't blame me for this. All I said was that if you like the
>> flavourless gruel of E40K, you would have loved the even more flavousless
>> (less flavoursome?) gruel of SM 1st edition...
>
>The point is, you were counting the number of races and weapons based of
>1/4 of the rules. If I do that trick with 2nd ed, all I get is "But you
>didn't include all the rules". You didn't to start with. If 2nd ed
>supporters can use that sort of logic to attack other versions, why
>can't we use it back?


OK. I get the point. As I mentioned, SM 1st edition is actually before my
time (I may come across as a dinosaur, but I've only be playing for about
five years...) and I wasn't aware that more 1st edition existed. My gaming
crowd has a copy of the black book we picked up second hand and that's just
about all we know about 1st edition...

I think you need to realise that there is a big difference between not
knowing something (genuine ignorance) and ignoring facts that you have in
your possession in order to make your argument sound more reasonable.

I wasn't attacking E40K (although you should certainly be forgiven
forthinking that I might have been :-). If I HAD been, (and armed with the
info that I have now) I probably would have sugested that even the almighty
GW realises that having only a hugely limited number of units (as they did
in the first release of SM where all you had was Marines and Traitor
Marines) is unacceptable becuase the quickly brought out three expansions to
increase diversity...


Agro
Received on Mon Mar 02 1998 - 06:46:15 UTC