Mike Looney - ionet wrote:
> Scott Shupe wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> The things that I have heard:
>
> 1) loss of Ork tanks.
> My reply: I have a handful ork tanks here. Please ID them for me.
> No, you don't get to grab the book, do YOU know. (this is a cheat, as
> several are "custom" [and I did it BEFORE E40K btw]). Beyond "Generic
> Battle Wagon" and "Gutripper" no one has gotten more than 30%
I don't get this argument. Are you saying your conversions don't look good?
Because the orks had some nice abilities for their vehicles, which have all
been reduced to 30 cm weapons or deathrays. No deathrollers, no anti-tank vs
anti-infantry decisions, and really no character. People who play with them
more than twice should have no difficulty telling a Braincrusha from a
Bonebreaka.
> 2) Loss of Ork Clans.
> My reply: Design your detachments to fit the fluff. There are MORE
> types of Ork infantry than there used to be now.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. There are 11 "types" of new ork infantry, while there
were 15 types of old ork infantry. Sure, 5 of them had the same combat
stats, but they all behaved differently when out of command, according to
their clans.
> 3) Chaos/Blood axes can't take every thing in the book that Imperials
> get as well as CSM and Demons/orky bitz
> My reply: This is a good thing. If you want to play Imperials play
> the m$%$%$ers
They never got everything, but they could get a few things, which was
appropriate to the their clan personality. To newer players: Orks used to
have "personality", whereby each clan type had certain abilities and
behaivors that the others didn't.
> 4) Army design takes all day.
> Do them before, like when you are painting the suckers. What? You
> don't paint your army? Go away then you are a munckin
I paint my army, and I liked being able to put together a 5000 point army in
five minutes. The "make your own detatchment" rules add nothing to the game,
as 90% of detatchment compositions don't work well with each other anyways.
All it is good for is frustrating newer players who haven't learned that
yet, because the "brain trust" didn't think to point this out in the books
anywhere.
> 5) Movement vs weapon ranges.
> This is a good thing also, this means that your tactical movement is
> based on what the enemy is doing, not the speed of the AFV. Most modern
> era/WWII era games are moving towards this (for the last 15 or so
> years). Non tactical movement can be quite fast (even infantry can move
> 45 cm a turn marching down a road)
Again, What? What AFV? How does making ork weapons accurate out to 60 yards
make this a better game? There were flame throwers that shot farther than
eldar guns do now. The only reason weapon ranges are so much shorter than
movement ranges is to support the crappy CC system, which I noticed you
didn't address as the biggest complaint about the new rules.
> Not saying that E40K doesn't have some problems, but it IS the best set
> of wargame rules that GW has put out.
>
> Speaking of that, some people have been saying that SM 2nd "is more like
> a wargame", to which I feel that I must reply
>
> "Have you played a set of rules written after 1980?".
> The 1:1 micro detailed armor rules in the classic "Tractics" and WRG's
> various rules sets are NOT what "current" wargame rules feel like.
> Granted Epic SM 1st ed was based on "Combined Arms" but it was not until
> E40K that they got the feel right. CA/CD turns should take about 15
> min per turn, assuming that each player is running 1-3 battalions.
> Command Decision 3rd edition actually has simpler basic rules than E40K,
> (but, I will grant you that even a "minor" country has more types of
> units than there are in Epic in total)
>
How do you figure E40K got combined arms better than SM/TL (Define a
"combined arms feel")? What are CA/CD turns, and I figured tanks could move
farther than 100 yds in 15 minutes, even in WWI.
E40K is an OK game. It is less thoughtful than SM/TL, and seems to have been
built so that GW's "brain trust" could play four or six times a year without
forgetting what their units do. SM/TL had flaws, but these could have been
rectified easily. The new system is a fine diversion, but not a serious
wargame.
Thane
> --
> Sillyness is the last refuse of the doomed. P. Opus
> http://www.spellbooksoftware.com
> -
Received on Fri Aug 28 1998 - 15:39:43 UTC