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

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 13:20:48 +0100 (MET)

At 08:39 AM 8/3/98 +1300, you wrote:
>On Sat 07 Mar, Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote:
>> chadtaylor wrote:
>>
>> > > Good to have you back, Sir! There's still some talk by people about our
>> > > - er - Epic Thundercheese vs Tyrannid battle we had a while ago.
>> >
>> > Great, I'm famous in defeat :)
>>
>> Actually, I conceded you a moral victory: it was my contention that even
>> a greatly inferior general could win vs anything with 20 Thunderhawks
>> with Chaos Space Marines. You out-generalled me and gave me so many
>> problems that if I hadn't of been scathingly brilliant (cough cough),
>> you would have won.
>>
>> > >
>> > > BTW did you get those 10+ boxes of Epic Figs I sent you about 12 months
>> > > ago? If not, then even by Australia Post standards, they're overdue...
>>
>> > Nope, never saw them.
>>
>> AGH. That's 14 boxes, 5 sprues each, or the equivalent of US $350 these
>> days. How utterly tiresome. I'll have to go through my old e-mail and
>> find out exactly when I posted 'em, to what address etc. But I suspect
>> they're Gorn without trace. Quelle Bummer.
>>
>> Still, to have you back on the list is more than adequate consolation.
>>
>> > So, did you make the change to E40k or are you still holding back? What
>> > about the other 'old guys' from way back when? I notice the list seems to
>> > be split, rather heated at times it seems also.
>>
>> After some trepidation, I tried E40K. Although there are a few wrinkles
>> that need smoothing out, and too much flavour has been removed, I
>> consider E40K to be the best set of miniatures rules that GW have ever
>> produced. The units are (slightly over-)simplified, but the game
>> mechanics are simple but rich. More complex than SM2/TL, which had very
>> simple basic rules but a zillion exceptions and special rules added.
>> NetEpic, last time I looked, appeared to have made a better but more
>> complex set of basic rules, and a more consistent but still more complex
>> set of exceptions for special units. Like SFB, it's become too complex
>> for my taste, but YMMV.
>>
>> I've certainly enjoyed playing E40K more than SM2, but like SM2
>> nonetheless. The only complaint I have about E40K is that some of the
>> simplifications were over-done, and one or two were in the wrong
>> boundaries: Thus Ork Traktor Kannon should be AT shots rather than FP2
>> artillery, Squig Catapults should be Disrupts rather than FP2 artillery.
>> The Ork Battlewagon simplification took a LOT of swallowing, but after
>> much experimentation with having 4 different types of Battlewagon, I
>> found there was no difference, IF had a proper Orky and individualistic
>> army.
>>
>> Others (Hi, Agro!) consider the above Heretical, and won't even try
>> E40K. Now I can understand someone playing 6 games of E40K and deciding
>> SM2 is better (I'd disagree), but not even to try seems a little
>> extreme. OTOH I'd rather play SM2 vs Agro than nothing. But as he's in
>> Brisbane, this is unlikely.


I'm sure that there will come a time... Of course anyone who would field 20
thunderhawks would deserve a very special army...




>>
>
>Part of the reason why some people in New Zealand won't even play
>Epic 40k is, I think, is a feeling of being cheat by GW. Their argument
>is that just when they managed to build up a decent army GW goes and
>changes the rules. While I can understand their feeling I can't agree
>with them. I had built up a decent army and had to convert it to Epic


"had to"??? No one made you do that (at least I assume that no one held a
gun to your head - I apologise if I am wrong... :-)


>40k but I have found the effort is well worthwhile. I also think
>that SM/TL was at a dead end, it had to many exceptions and who
>won initiate determined who won the game. My impression is that
>everybody agreed that the SM/TL rules needed a complete overall. I my
>opinion GW has done an excellent job with Epic 40k. Ok I have a few
>compliants about Epic 40k, particular its lack of movement bonus's
>or reductions for moving through different types of terrain, but
>overall I think the rules are great.
>
>This has made me think of an idea for another thread, what about
>compiling a list of all the things that need to be correct in Epic
>40k. I think the following needed to be corrected:
>
>- Movement bonus's and reductions for moving through different types
> of terrain,
>- bunkers to be worth 1d6 morale if destroyed, instead of 5,
>- vehicles should be able to use cover,
>- units in fortifications should receive a -1 vs anti-tank and
> death rays.
>
>P.S SM/TL I am not wanting to get into a argument about the merits of
> SM/TL vs Epic 40k, I just trying explain why some NZ players won't
> change over to Epic 40k and why I like Epic 40k.


Yep, I don't think anyone wants that discussion again so soon. I will add
that your experience seems to mirror my own experience in Brisbane. There
may be some heretics hanging out somewhere but I (and the rest of the
inquisition :-) haven't found them yet.

Seriously, I don't know a single E40K player in Brisbane and neither do the
guys I play with. A large number of folks who attend the club I play at
come over and ask if we play E40K and no one has yet been surprised at our
negative answers. They have all said that that is what they've found - that
no one plays E40K...

There was one guy who posted my from a place in Brisbane, but when I told
him that I don't E40K and don't know anyone who does, he never posted me
again. (I guess that that makes one confirmed E40Ker in Brisbane - I'd
better oil the thumbscrews! :-)

Agro




>
>---
>
>Sean Smith
>
>Seans_at_...
>
>---
>
>
>
Received on Sun Mar 08 1998 - 12:20:48 UTC