RE: [Epic] Orks in various rules set

From: Miller, Chris <CMiller_at_...>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 11:09:43 -0600

> .
>
> I think I had mentioned on the list that 1st Ed did have more rules
> than
> just the basic box set, after the first 2 or 3 times that you made
> your
> statement about only 1 race. I thought I would drive the point home
> by
> doing to 2nd ed, what you were doing to 1st.
        -------> There is a definite progression here, though: 1st ed: 2
sides, identical stats (Booooorring! - but it did mean lots of tac
troopers, rhinos, and LandRaiders for later...) 2nd ed has basic minis
for 3 races in-box, and rules for others not included,so you couls at
least start an army of any of the races or try them out beffore
purchasing additional rules. 3rd ed now gives you complete rules for all
current races in box, just not as many mini's, though the variety is
better. Working in the oddballs, AT gave 6 warlord titans, also cool,
and you could make different models from them, and it didn;t have rules
for infantry anyway. TL gave rules for a few units from all the
different races, but the in-box minis were pretty limited for building
an army.
            As for 1st ed's rules, The only Real Supplement CT added
Orks and Eldar and fleshed out the impies a bit, but the Chaos and other
stuff was fairly uncommon and kind of optional - hard to get too excited
about building a whole army on one WD article, and they never put it in
another supplement, then the new SM came out within a year or so, nuking
all of it.

> 1) I don't thing of GW as almighty. I like some of their rules (like,
> say all 3 epic versions). I don't like their attitude towards
> wargamer
> who don't play just GW games. I don't like their current marketing
> practice. Hell, I don't even like the "GW 'Eavy Metal" style of
> painting. I don't like the fact the "GAMES Workshop" seems to think
> that PAINTING is more important than game playing.
------> That "red bolt gun" thing bother you too, in the painting
department? Always painted mine black or metal, and suddenly we had
marines carrying red guns...at least the IG have rediscovered cammo
schemes...

> 2) The order of 1st ed rules was Adeptus Titanicus (which, BTW claimed
> that Titans are Giant Robots), Space Marine, then "Codex Titanicus",
> which added in the basic rules for Orks and Eldar. After that it was
> all WD articles. By the time that you find and count up all the Ork
> stuff in WD articles it gets into the SM/TL/WL range of numbers.
>
-------> It's nuts...at least the 40K stuff went into books..the 1st ed
SM/AT players just got left out.

> 3) Both AT and SM 1st were written to replay battles of the Horus
> Heresy. Complaining that it doesn't have other races and units is
> sort
> of like bitching about a set of rules for, say, Waterloo, that doesn't
> have rules for B-52 air strikes.
>
--------> I wouldn't go that far...many people came to it from WH40K
which already had eldar, orks, marines, guard, and squats, so we knew
they were out there. When the box contains _identical_ forces, that's
pretty harsh. It said this on the box, of course, but if you were
thinking it might include rules for orks etc you could be disappointed.
How much time do people spend playing games where each side uses the
same units? Axis & Allies or Risk are the two I think of offhand, and,
while fun, they aren't really miniatures games or what I would call
complicated. Don't Napoleonics show some differences between the sides,
like morale differences, at least? I'd say GW learned from a mistake
there, since they've chosen to mix it up ever since.

Chris Miller

>
Received on Mon Mar 02 1998 - 17:09:43 UTC