Re: [Epic] Rants. Was SM/TL vs E40K unit costs

From: J. Michael Looney <mlooney_at_...>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 22:29:45 -0600

Jason Stephensen wrote:
>
> At 09:00 05/03/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >Exactly (thought I would say hello to all by getting into this one :) !
> >
> >Look, the whole GW thing is screwed up - but it is a game. It is not a
> >simulation of real combat. It does not follow the rules the rest of the
> >world does/would. It has NEVER claimed to. All of you who are upset about
> >'that doesn't make sense' are trying to play a different game by GW rules.
>
> As I remember Chad has managed to sum up the argument here pretty well. GW
> is not a good representation of reality when it comes to combat. I don't
> think it ever has tried to. When you want realism change games. Play the
> game for fun. If you don't have fun don't play it. My God I almost defended
> GW.

I would except that IF they didn't toss in asinine little statements
about "you would be able to see the commander in a real battle field" as
their cover for they rules that allow them to sell a single 28 mm figure
for $10.00+. This of course is the real reason that the rule exist,
other wise 14 year olds will say, why should I get this figure, it'll
just get killed in the first turn. Now it's "he'll kill 256 of the
enemy grunts and they can't kill him. It ROCK HARD and Kewl dude."

>
> >I suggest to those who don't like the 'that isn't realistic' part of any GW
> >game (Epic here) should go check out Dirtside II from GZG. That is a
> >little more of the realistic future mini game you are looking for. Just
> >use your Epic Figs and you will do just fine (there are rules for unit/mini
> >construction so you won't have any problem).
>
> Yep, Dirtside is a great game in the same scale is a far more realistic
> game. You have titans in that and expect them to get toasted damn quick.
> East to hit something THAT big.
>
I have them, BTW, as well as Stiker II, which is another "realistic" set
of SF rules.

> >The point is, Epic (or any GW game for that matter) is not trying to show
> >realistic future combat. It is showing how combat works in the fictional
> >GW universe (much like a comic book roleplaying game perhaps shows how
> >people live in a comic book universe). And with that in mind it does a
> >pretty good job.
>
> I agree. The game is there for the fun of the players. Regardless of
> whether you are pro or anti GW the whole object of the game is to have fun.
> If not dump it.
>
> >Just a thought.
> >
> >Chad (was gone, now I'm back)
>

Look, I was not saying that the various forms of GW games are not fun.
What I was commenting on to start with is that the one, shall we say
less than realistic rule (Well, one of then less than realistic rules)
they have they try and smoke screen by using "on a real battle", when it
is obvious that in their universe, much like the real world before, say
1860, you CAN tell who the officers are.
Received on Thu Mar 05 1998 - 04:29:45 UTC