Re: [Epic] Epic 40K Orders

From: Cameron Bentsen <stu7i95_at_...>
Date: 06 Mar 1997 16:11 EST

In message "[Epic] Epic 40K Orders", you write:

> >The reason Net Epic was asked to move off the list was because of the
> >volume of mail generated by contributors to the product. Once the
> >product is finished, it will almost certainly be welcome on the list
> >again, providing that the amount of mail generated because of it
> >isn't overly large.
>
> Well, I recall Agro pointing out that NetEpic would have been okay if the
> list had only been tweaking the rules, but now it's a whole new game, and
> should be moved off. And there were at least two "I agrees."

Nevertheless, I think you'll see that these people are much in the
minority if and when a complete version of Net Epic is posted to the list.

[snip]

> The new, variable unit sizes bespeaks a lack of any higher-level
> organization. In Space Marine, psykers and other special troops were doled
> out in what I viewed as the right proportion, one to a company. Now, it
> looks as if an Epic army, instead of looking like an army organized along
> regimental lines, will look like a collection of self-contained, personal
> armies, each with its own psyker. I always justified 40K armies,
> characters aside, by theorizing that they were small raiding parties, or
> small, specially chosen strike forces, selected especially for a certain
> task. Now, it looks like those raiding parties and strike forces will be
> the basis of every 300 man battle. In short, creating an army for Epic
> scale, small as it is, using the Warhammer 40K method of unit creation is
> unrealistic and inappropriate.

If people do pick 40K-style "armies" as their detachments, they will
likely lose to people who pick Space Marine-style detachments, simply because
as Paul pointed out earlier all the units in the detachment have the same
orders, and the orders that are good for an infantry "company" aren't going
to be the same as the orders that are good for the tanks that support it.
I think we'll see a migration away from 40K-style mixed forces in any
opponent who brings them up against any reasonably competent Space Marine
player.

As for a lack of realism in the game (close assault, short ranged weapons,
psykers, etc.), realism isn't a high point for Space Marine either, nor
do I think it needs to be for a game set in the 41st millenium.



I understand perfectly well that a lot of people are annoyed at some of the
rules that GW has incorporated in this new game, based on the fact that they
prefer their Space Marine equivalents. Consider, though, that this game has
a different name (Epic40K), is aimed at a different group of players (WH40K
people), and really only has the premise in common with Space Marine. Now
consider how silly it sounds for someone to feel that a game publisher has
somehow slighted them by issuing a new game, using a different set of rules
from their favourite game produced by that publisher. The only thing to get
upset about is that GW isn't supporting Space Marine anymore, and they haven't
been doing that for a long time now.

If it's a new game, then read the (complete) rules, try the game out, maybe
play a few demos, decide whether you've had a fun time, and buy (or don't buy)
the game on that basis. Don't slag it because it's not a clone of your
favourite game.

Cameron Bentsen, Ottawa.
Received on Thu Mar 06 1997 - 21:11:00 UTC