Thane Morgan wrote:
> I was going to stay out of this, but I can't resist.
Okay. I was going to stay out of this thread, but now _I_ can't resist.
> WH40K is ok, but not great or even good. It's biggest advantage is that you can
> always find a game on the weekend. For that reason, I bought a decent bug army
> at 1/2 price when a local game store closed. I started painting 3 TW's about 4
> months ago; one day I'll finish.
Like most things, you get out of it what you put into it. Unpainted armies are
alot less fun to play with and against. Is your Epic army painted?
> WH40k seems to be a "shoot-out at the OK Corrale" game. Most players line up
> their armies, then one side shots, then the other, then the other, then the
> other, until turn 4 where everyone rushes to achieve their "mission". It has
> seemed really stupid the 4 times I've played.
You're playing against the wrong people, and without enough terrain. This kindof
static stand-and-shoot battle is the least fun kind of game.
> One of them ended with the chaos
> player winning because he rushed his chaos marines to a certain point in the
> center of the table on the last move of the game, gaining extra vp. Never mind
> that this point was 3 inches in front of 1 leman russ and 12 inches from a
> second leman russ, out in the open. Because of the turn order, the Russ's never
> got to fire at the marines.
And this is different from the objectives in Epic/Epic40K in that....?
Objectives at least force some semblance of tactical behaviors on players,
other than the "shootout" scenario you complain about.
--
// Cornelius Perkins cperkins_at_...
// http://www.nothinbut.net/~cperkins
// In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
Received on Mon May 11 1998 - 20:23:46 UTC