RE: [Epic] Another Epic40K vs NetEpic post :)

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 00:28:13 +0200

At 07:50 AM 28/8/98 -0400, you wrote:
>This is friendly discussion, not a version flame. :)
>
>> Epic40K is a FUN game I will admit. I personally was VERY skeptical of it
>> when I saw it but I did enjoy playing it. My gripes with the system have
>> nothing to do with how the game plays but the way the rules are
>> written. Its
>> lost what little wargaming feel the old edition had and replaced it with
>> sterilized generic stats. I'd play Generic Legions if I wanted that (and
>> that is free and can use any model). The older editions may have been more
>> complex but they were much truer "wargames" then the comic book
>> style fights
>> of Epic40K.
>
>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.


I don't understand this assertion that E40K is "more like a real wargame" so
it is better.

Don't we all understand that Epic is not intended to be a "real" wargame? I
don't play "real" wargames, so I can't be sure that there are games out
there that accurately simulate modern warfare, but folks who do play those
games asure us that there are games that simulate warfare much better than E40K.

If you want a real wargame, why not play one? Why play a poor attempt at one?

The appeal (for me) of SM/TL is that it is NOT a "real" wargame. It is a
fantasy game with wierd bizzare stuff happening all of the time against a
background of unbelievably heroic (gothic?) belief that it is better to die
bravely serving the Emporer than to fight like a coward and win...

"Half a league, half a league, half a league onward... Into the valley of
death rode the brave 600..."

It may have been suicidal but it sure made an impression...


>
>I'd have to say I don't understand how simpler stats makes it more generic,
>though, or have less of an interesting feel.
>
>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. Although I've not played either game
>frequently enough to not have to look stuff up, I do get the impression that
>I can play more turns more quickly in E40K.


I have never understood this argument. If you enjoy doing something, why is
it important to get it over with as soon as possible?

You don't hear people bragging about how they manage to complete having sex
in under 30 seconds do you?

Why is it a bonus to be finished more quickly?

(Of course we're talking about E40K here, so I would brobably compare it to
an amputation without anaesthetic rather than to sex. And I probably would
agree that it _would_ be better to get it over with as quickly as possible ;-)


As to the time it takes to play a game of SM/TL - from several conventions I
have organised I feel that I can confidently state that a 3000 point game is
practically always finished in three hours. (When we are playing socially
rather than competitively, it takes longer because we stop and socialise as
we go, but when your aim is to push the game through in a fixed time it has
never been a big deal.)



>But I've heard the exact same
>anecdotes both ways. (We were playing X, and on the next table they were
>playing Y. We finished two games in the time it took the other guys to
>almost finish their game. :)
>
>andy
>
>
>


As to the game that people should play, it must be obvious to everyone that
your opponents dictate this. If you can't find anyone to play SM/TL with
you might as well play Stargrunt or Dirtside or one of those really good
simulations that folks keep talking about.

But if all you can find is a bunch of E40K players you really don't have
much choice, do you?


Agro
Received on Sat Aug 29 1998 - 22:28:13 UTC