Re: [Epic] Epic 40k - answers to our questions!

From: Richard Dewsbery <dewsbery_at_...>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 12:03:37 +0100

> > Unfortunately a number of errors creeped into the example detachments in
> > the army book. Fortunately, in every case where there is a
> > contradiction, the detachment list is correct, and the example is wrong.
> Bear this
> > in mind and you should be OK.
>
> I will have to re-read to see if I have understood Jervis' point or not.

If you did, please share the insight with the rest - I haven't got a
clue as to what he meant :-)

> So far, I'm liking the response, though I wish these had been more clear in
> the rulebook. Perhaps the new WD battle report will clarify some of this
> too, I'll wait until us US folks get the WD.
>
Unfortunately, it doesn't.

But it was helpful in learning to play before the first game.

Richard
Received on Sat Apr 12 1997 - 11:03:37 UTC