Re: [Epic] Things I miss in E40K

From: Tristrim Peter Murnane <tmurnane_at_...>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 17:54:50 +1000 (EST)

> "W. Gregory Klett" <cyclops_at_...> writes:
> > >They have added a tactical depth to the game that could never be achieved
> > >on the old system.
> > >Steve
> >
> > Hunh??? Excuse me! But where???
>
> I'm glad to see that someone agrees with me. Until I see
> otherwise, most of my so called "tactics" are going to be: Get more of
> my troops into CC, firefights, and piddly 30-45cm firefights with less
> of his troops. Which, admittedly, are the rudimentary basics of
> tactics, but the execution of this is *very* straightforward. Guns
> *ARE* important, but they're tactically just another form of close
> combat with their pathetic range.

        Hmm, well, in the games I've played (Ok, ALL two of them :(), we
had twice as many turns that we used to. All armies having air cover will
add some depth (even if it's not much).
        As far as I am concerned (as a IG player), having everybody being
stuck with my old probelm of 25-30cm command and control has givin ME more
depth, because I can play like everyone else, and not be hinded. For other
armies other than IG, I can see the problem, having to keep that windrider
host all toghter now. I think that mabye Ig havn't gone foward, but
everybody's else has been taken back to our postion. So it acts like a net
gain for me and a net loss for you. (Marine's in particlar probably).
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC