Brett Hollindale wrote:
>
> To answer the question, playing a game by the rules of that game does not
> make one "a blind follower", but ceasing to play a game because the almighty
> GW wants to squeeze you for some more bucks IS a bit different...
>
Point the first. I like Epic 40K, as a wargame, better than Space
Marine 2nd Ed. That is why I play it.
Point the second. On the rare times that I play WH40K I play 1st ed
(aka WH40K/RT).
I stopped playing 2nd ed because I like 3rd ed better. Has nothing to
do with GW's marketing ploys, which, as a whole, suck rocks.
> To address the between the lines issue of armie cards:
>
> Once in a while, even the blind monkey finds the banana...
> Which is to say that once in a while even GW has a good idea.
>
> You see, EPIC is more than a rule set, it's a complete universe. "The
> fluff" is what makes EPIC great. Oddly, the cards are part of that fluff.
Ah, but which set of fluff? I like the AT/SM/CT & WH40K/RT fluff much
better than the SM/TL/AOI/etc & WH40K 2nd. fluff. Granted the fluff in
E40K is a bit thin. Like it's not there. So I my case I am basing the
fluff on the 1st ed stuff.
>
> The fluff tells us that the way combat is conducted has been passed down for
> generations in tomes called The Codexes...
>
I assume then that you never play Orks or Space Wolves, only generic
Space Marines. The whole idea that every ork warband of a given clan is
identical is, well, un orky. And of course the Space Pups go out of
their way to not be Codex.
> What it comes down to is that anything that needs to be included in the rule
> set that doesn't make logical sense is included as a quotation from "The
> Codex such-and-such".
>
<sarcasm>
So the codexs say that you should never shoot at the enemy commander,
because that might make you win the battle, you should allways shoot at
the closest group of hostiles, regardless, even if they are not the
major threat at the time. Which one says that please?
</sarcasm>
<rant target=GW>
As it happens that major things that don't make sense in 2nd ed (both
scales here) aren't covered up by codex quotes. The targeting rules
are, to put it bluntly, screwed. "You would not be able to see the
commander/hero/special character in battle with all the smoke and
explosions going on" Its the dude with the 6 foot back banner sticking
up over he's head. If officers in the 20th century can be spotted by
things about 2 cm in size at real ranges, much less this knife fight
range that GW seems to think that warfare is, then why in the HELL can't
you figure out that the person with the banners that double his height
is the officer in their games? As a side not the "you can't shoot
officers rule" exists only in SM/TL and WH40K 2nd. Ed. It is not in
WH40K/RT or AT/SM/CT nor E40K.
</rant>
> I would guess that the cards are there for game balance - to attempt to
> force generals to avoid "cheesing out" (you know what I meen...)
I think I have found our basic problem with epic versions. I started
playing Epic in 1990, with 1st Ed. WD 126 was the primary source for
Space Marine army design. It had a "codex" about it, in that a SM
regiment was allways 3 battalions of 3 compaines each. The total number
of some units was based on the total in the regiment, but as regt.
commander you could build your task forces/companies as you saw fit.
Along comes 2nd ed and all at once you get "This is what a company/clan
looks like. Take it or leave it." I was not a happy camper.
As it so happens my space marine chapter, The Azure Warriors (found at
http://www.spellbooksoftware.com/epic/detachents/Azure ) is more or less
codex. The AW tend towards being fire power happy, not close combat
happy, which means I don't have an assault company, and I have a full
regiment (6 companies) of armor. The "Special Missions Battalion" on
the other hand, could only be done in AT/SM/CT or E40K, not SM/TL
--
Sillyness is the last refuse of the doomed. P. Opus
--
Geek code: GAT d-- s:-- a C+++ UL++ P+ L++ !E- W+++ N++ o K++ w+++ !o
!M-- !V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP t++ 5+ X R+++ tv+ b++++ DI++++ D G++ e+
h---(*)
r+++ y+++(**)
http://www.spellbooksoftware.com
Received on Wed Mar 04 1998 - 14:08:09 UTC