Re: [Epic] Just having fun now! Titan Legion rules vs. Epic 40k

From: Thane Morgan <thane_at_...>
Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 18:31:38 -0600

Steve Wik wrote: If a ruleset is truly tuned correctly then there's never
the possibility of tuning an army to "perfection" because every army has
strengths and

> weaknesses, and hopefully it is tactics that will win the day. If
> anything, I'd go so far as to claim that E40k seems better designed in
> this respect.

I'd have to strongly disagree there. E40K makes it much easier to make a
cheese based army, such as the 20 nightspinner army, the 30 biovore army,
the 40 landraider army, etc. There were flaws, but they were more easily
overcome. I think they were somewhat more forgivable as well, since they
were trying create many varied units with a combined IQ of maybe 120. This
game probably only required 50 IQ to develop, leaving a good 70 IQ to have
seen that the superheavy weapons were pretty unbalanced. Somehow that wasn't
enough for them.

> And, as far as playing the role of the on-the-table
> commander, E40k makes even more sense because you have a broader role of
> commanding detachments in overall strategies rather than commanding each
> model individually to move and shoot essentially on it's own at specific
> targets, (no commander in history has enjoyed that level of control of
> his troops!) with greater clusters of models only being useful in that
> more individual shots get taken making it more likely that a specific
> target model will "die".

Sure, but most commanders/ squader leaders could tell their troops that the
armor was more threatening than infantry, so kill them first while they're
far away. Even WH40K got that little bit right, and they probably only had
30 IQ to develop it with.

> Anyway, maybe I'm incorrect, but I haven't gotten the impression that
> anyone likes E40k specifically because there's less fluff or thinks that
> it's better than SM/TL because of it.

Actually, I do like the lack of fluff; they always put the fluff in the
rules parts of the books, causing a great deal of confusion.

> It's what has been stated before,
> a matter of taste. I can see why people would like both games, they're
> both pretty cool. (it took me a hard while to decide which ruleset I
> liked best) I chose the one that delivered the play experience that i
> wanted. You chose yours for the same reason. Your version had it's
> life, now it's my turn. Eventually my version will be made obsolete by
> a new edition (and I'll probably be upset). But clearly some people do
> like the new version(did SM/TL ever win any awards or appear on top five
> lists or anything? Just wondering).

Hanson and Millie Vanillie have been in the top five of some polls; does
that mean you'd want to hear them? Does that make them better musicians than
Beethoven; he was never in a top five poll.

> If you don't like it then you're already "boycotting" it by virtue of not
> playing it. I will continue to support it. But it's obvious that GW did
> not "ruin" SM/TL, they erected
> a brand new game in it's place that happens to be at the same scale...

Of course they ruined it! They stopped supporting the game for 9 months
while they alternately made the new rule system, ate bananas and threw shit
at the tourists. They don't let you play in their stores. They jacked up the
prices and destroyed entire races' miniatures. The only way they could have
ruined it worse would be recalling all of the products, claiming smallpox
contamination, and burning them. Or releasing an "Outlands" supplement...

Thane
Received on Thu May 07 1998 - 00:31:38 UTC