Andy Skinner wrote:
>
> If you compare time, of course you'd have to compare games of similar
> numbers of minis (not points, which aren't equal between systems), and
> similar familiarity between rulesets.
I agree. Until you gain some familiarity with the rules/
system, your games are going to take longer. I had similar
experiences when I first started playing Space Marines.
When Kenneth said, "We both had to keep referring to the
books for questions on badly worded rules," I had a major Space
Marine flashback. E40k has the expected GW rule ambiguities, but
SM/TL is *far* worse in this regard. So much worse it's not even
funny. And I have to say that I have *never* gotten into a
heated arguments over rule disputes in E40k, while the same is
not true of SM/TL.
> I'd have to say I don't understand how simpler stats makes it more generic,
> though, or have less of an interesting feel.
I think you get out of a game what you put into it.
Some people prefer to have all of the different weapons and
what-not spelled out for them in the rules; others are fine with
imagining some of it themselves. To me, E40k is the superior
game system and I know the fluff anyway, so I when I look at the
table I don't see little generic models but rather a pitched
battle in the 40k-verse.
Not that E40k is generic to begin with; anyone who claims
this hasn't played or hasn't played that much. The different
armies are NOT the same - each one still has an individual feel
to it.
Scott Shupe
shupes_at_... shupes@...
http://www.rpi.edu/~shupes
***********************************************************************
"Don't you laugh, damn you, don't you laugh!" - Clockwork Orange
Received on Fri Aug 28 1998 - 13:45:28 UTC