Miller, Chris wrote:
> > 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.
I would go that far. For starters it was in the "WH40K/RT" era, as I
recall back when the IG was called "The Army of the Empire".
Secundus, any thing set in a civil war will tend to have identical
units. That's why it's a civil war.
> 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.
Again, any thing set in a civil war will tend to have units that are
close to identical. Lots of Medival games are farly generic about their
force types, as are several Napy rules. i.e the stats for a line trooper
is pretty much the same.
--
Sillyness is the last refuse of the doomed. P. Opus
http://www.spellbooksoftware.com
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GAT d-- s:- a38 US++ P+ L+ E W+++ N++ K++ w++ O- M- V-- PS+ PE++ Y PGP
t++
5 X R+++ tv+ b++++ DI+++ D G+ e+ h--- r+++ y+++(**)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Received on Mon Mar 02 1998 - 17:32:04 UTC