> >This is friendly discussion, not a version flame. :)
>
> Oh, of course not :) <wink>
Seriously, I want it to keep that way. We've had way too much
unpleasantness, when a good number of us like both games.
> >That's funny, because it is the exact kind of argument that I've
> heard from
> >E40K supporters--that the new version is much more like a
> wargame than the
> >old.<
>
> <boggle> What kind of wargame would that be. Playing Epic40K I had visions
> of the old GI Joe cartoons dancing through my head. the little
> blast markers
> just made the image clearer. I can't think of a SINGLE 'hard-core' wargame
> that plays like Epic40K :)
> Maybe you mean it plays like a boardgame? <ducks>
Well, I did say that was the argument I've heard from others. (JML, I
think?) I think part of the point is that it encourages maneuvering, and
represents suppression.
What's wrong with boardgames?
> >I'd have to say I don't understand how simpler stats makes it
> more generic,
> >though, or have less of an interesting feel.
> >
>
> Simper stats=generic.
I assume you meant "simple", but I'm sure you and Agro would claim they're
"simpering", too. :)
I agree with Scott. It isn't important to me whether the stats are simple
or generic (up to a point--I wouldn't like representing each unit with a
checker and playing on a checkerboard, with firing and assault represented
by jumping over an opposing unit--but I think E40K is well within my
limits). I get the feel of the game from looking at the battlefield. I'm
starting to get more into the background a little bit, purely to spice
things up some more. I'm quite content with the representation of varied
things by similar stats. I also like Alan Brain's battlewagon explanation
(rationalization? :) about how the stats represent the average, since an Ork
Warlord could have such a variety under his command.
Plus, not all unit types have more generic stats. There is much more
variety in basic infantry types than there used to be.
> Take a peek at Generic Legions.
I have. I posted a link for this a long time ago to this list. It's fun to
look at. But I get the impression of fiddliness, from a game supporting a
silly background.
(It's at
http://users.aol.com/ferns1/genleg.htm, by the way.)
> Well, usually Epic40K games have way more turns for one thing, mainly
> becuase you HAVE to move so damn close to combat, and B) there
> are no really long ranged weapons anymore in it. Meaning you HAVE
> to close range to attack, and that means a LOT more weapons get to
> fire. In one turn I lost 80% of my army! Game over! All that
> manuevering and BLAM!
This isn't a bug, it's a feature. :) Seriously, I objected when I first saw
the ranges cut from 25cm increments to 15cm increments. I originally
intended to play with rescaled ranges (Land Raider at 75cm, Eldar Guardians
at 25cm). But I discovered that Epic 40K does allow for more turns. Epic
2nd was always 2 or 3 turns. It was straight towards the other, and BLAM!
:) I'm not saying that Epic 2nd is bad, with no strategy, or that all games
turned out that way. But moving to E40K did promote more turns for me,
which I found more interesting.
My only complaint about ranges is that there are plenty of troops which can
assault from outside of 45cm, which is a medium-long range. I think the old
rules for troops transported in vehicles (pro-rating movement) gave better
results than the current system, but the current is simpler.
Although the flyer rules may be more realistic, I miss having them on the
board. A lot of the flyers should be able to act as VTOL (thunderhawk, for
example), and I'd like for flyers to be able to have an on-table VTOL mode.
But I haven't thought it out.
andy
Received on Fri Aug 28 1998 - 14:31:42 UTC