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

From: Thane Morgan <thane_at_...>
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 15:26:02 -0600

Jonathan Westmoreland wrote:

> > I love the fluff, but I agree that it should not be in the rules
> > section. E40K could have benefited new players better by providing a
> > section on the how & why the various races organize their armies.
> > Then
> > you could probably see armies constructed that have more character &
> > are
> > more enjoyable to play.
> >
> > --Elaine
> > "Sing, O Goddess, of the bitter wrath of Achilles ...."
> >
> *switch lurk mode to rant mode*
>
> *Nod of agreement*. My question is, why doesn't the Battles book
> have more fluff for the armies? Don't get me wrong here, I do like
> what's in that book, but IMHO its the perfect spot for fluff for the
> armies. What little fluff that does appear in the book is far too
> short, even for new players. And, an opinion as to the reference
> to the 40k books for fluff. I play 40k, but if I didn't, why would I
> pay
> $35 (Canadian) for a Codex for each army I play in Epic? I'm lucky
> in the fact that I own the Codexes for my Epic armies, since I play
> them in 40k as well. But if I didn't...........that's a lot of money.
>
> *switches rant mode back to lurk mode*
>
> Jonathan Westmoreland
> All you know is now in question, for your eyes are now open to the Truth
> that is Chaos.

  That wasn't much of a rant. I hope to see better in the future.

Thane
Received on Fri May 08 1998 - 21:26:02 UTC