Steve Wik wrote:
> >It IS possible to vote with your feet and send a message to
> GW
> that >they will hear.
> >(The theory being if E40K doesn't sell - and I will certainly
>
> never buy it -
> >they will wonder why...)
>
> Y'know, if everyone had taken that attitude way back when, you guys
> would still be playing FIRST EDITION Space Marine now... (eeeew!)
>
You know I would. Lets not forget that 1st ed is not that old, as war
games rules go.
> E40k is cool. Having to shoot and work out damage on a model-by-model
>
> basis and choose your army based on what models cancel out your
> opponent's choices is exactly what I don't like about Warhammer 40k.
> The focus on detachments is what makes E40k strategic and "realistic"
> for me. Nothing against the older versions, I'm sure they're great
> fun,
> but E40k is the one that gives me what I'm looking for in terms of
> (reasonably) easy playability and a truer sense of what it's like to
> command large armies.
>
What I do is think of E40K/.E41K vs AT/SM1 is like Command Decision vs
Firefly. One is a battalion/regimental level game, one is a
platoon/company level game. They just happen to use the same figures.
I don't have a problems with this in my W.W.II games, why should I have
a problem with it in SF games?
--
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 Thu May 07 1998 - 15:13:21 UTC