Re: [Epic] Warhammer 40K

From: Brian Thomas <bthom37_at_...>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 19:25:27 -0500

At 07:50 PM 5/11/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Thane Morgan wrote:
>
>> Did you read the whole message, or just excerpt enough to complain about?
>
>This kind of a response is so unhelpful that I decline to discuss further
with you.
>
>To anyone else still interested in 40K, I'll point out that Thane's
experience, in
>his total of four games, is radically different from mine (several year's
worth,
>possibly over a hundred games).
>
>I have never seen both sides just sit and shoot, though certainly there are
>pairings where one side must sit and await the enemy (anybody versus the Nids,
>for example).
>
>I'll claim that, especially now that Epic has been reworked to be more
40K-like,
>most Epic players will find that it's a game which lets you look at a much
finer
>scale - you notice the fate and contributions of individual troopers.
>
>And of course, as in any game, what you put into it is what you get out of it.
>
>Cornelius
>
>--

Throw another shrimp on the barbie, and don your flame-retardant suits!
It's flamewar time! The only constructive thing I have to add, is that with
more details come more problems (cf. rec.games.miniatures.warhammer the Q+A
files for 40K vs E40K. 572 lines vs. 40 Or the Khorne termie debate, which
is at least all told 150+ posts) You(Sauron I believe was the original
poster) might want to look at rgmw, and at rec.games.miniatures.misc for
views on this and other games. rgmw is a *bit* slanted against 40K 2nd ed.
and GW in general (but really, who isn't? :) Still, there's interesting
stuff to be found.

                                        Good luck,

                                                Brian
Received on Tue May 12 1998 - 00:25:27 UTC