Re: [Epic] more thoughts on Epic40K

From: Scott Shupe <shupes_at_...>
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 11:01:58 -0400

Miller, Chris wrote:
>
> I don't understand this assumption that "they like imperials better" -
> Everyone gets a lot of attention for a while, then they move on. This
> happens in ALL of their games. Right now, the majority of the new Epic
> mini's are Imperial, so they get some special stuff.

        But it's not just Epic. Hell, just in WD 209 there's a 40k
article that lets SM armies be led by any SM character, because it's
SO unfair to make SM players pay all those points for the captain,
and because captains aren't supposed to be that common. And yet,
chaos armies still have to be led by a Lord, eldar armies still have
to be led by a Farseer (captains are rare and farseers aren't?), etc
etc ad nauseum.

> I believe Eldar
> are next, and you can be sure that they will get some spiffy new
> exceptions & add-ons as well...

        Well I don't really see what they could add. The marine
specializations were a fairly obvious next step, but the whole
eldar army is already in the Armies Book.

> Remember, they always have a boxed set add-on for the "Big Box" games
> within a year (usually a lot less) full of complicating things they
> didn't fit into the basic set. Look at: The last 2 versions of Fantasy,
> the current 40K, Man-O-War, Necromunda, & Talisman. Epic 2nd ed and
> Warhammer Quest followed a slightly different pattern, but they still
> have add-on boxes, so expect at least one.

        Jervis already told us that wasn't going to be the case
with Epic 40k; all additions were going to be in WD. I'm inclined
to believe him for now.

Scott
shupes_at_...
Received on Thu May 29 1997 - 15:01:58 UTC