RE: [Epic] Thread on Orcs, AT & LRs [was barrage]

From: Peacekeeper-� <jnug1453_at_...>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 02:01:49 -0400

>>I don't think the player's favorite really matters.
>
>It absolutely DOE=
S matter. Players' favorite = SALES!! More new nifty
>gadgets for the p=
layers' favorite = MORE SALES!!
>
>Temp

.----> I will agree with some of=
 the original comments about the
vicious cycle - we have seen a near-consta=
nt barrage of new
imperial vehicles from tanks to bikes in 40K, but they ha=
ve
mostly been conversions of things from Epic or re-dos of
older 40K mini'=
s. I think the reasoning behind this is tied
into the fact that there are m=
arines in the box and the
Imperium is the central "theater" of the game.
        W=
e've seen some Ork re-do's (nothing really new, though)
and the Eldar have =
had some re-do's and the new Vyper.
As popular as they seem to be, I am sur=
prised by the lack
 of eldar add-ons, especially vehicles. I think with the=
 new epic
mini's, that will change - they have a decent looking tank
and a =
personnel carrier (wave serpent) now. I just hope that
(as I am finally bui=
lding an ork 40K army) we see some
ork 40K vehicles. I wonder how they're g=
oing to make a
"battlewagon" for 40K, though...I'm sick of all the ork play=
ers
taking blood axes just so they can use IG tanks...

        Getting back to ep=
ic, I don't think any race can feel
 shortchanged on troops & vehicles - I =
would like to see some
things added, but I don't think any race is unplayab=
le or
unfairly disadvantaged. We are blurring two different issues:

1) rac=
e x isn't getting as much support/new units
2) race x is not competitive wi=
th other races

The support issue is sales-driven, the play balance issue
s=
houldn't be.

I agree in theory. I don't think E40K has been played enough =
yet
to determine playbalance. Her are my initial observations however
from=
 the 3 armies I have played, seen played, or seen
battle reports.
(Prepari=
ng to be shot to pieces).

Imperials seem to be solid and dependable as alw=
ays:While I would not
say they are unbalanced, they are helped by being abl=
e to both
TG, IG, and marine stuff. It's a definite advantage to have Artil=
lary and
marine units patrolling the board. The land raider appears to be =
the only cheesy unit so far, of course it's hard to compare, since there ar=
e few
units with ani-tank weapons that are tanks. (The two that come to min=
d being the exocrine and the Fire Prism)I think GW underestimade the
effec=
tiveness of anti-tank weapons avalable on common vehicals. For instance the=
 'each LR places a blast marker fired at seperat detachments effect."

Ork=
s:Only seen 2 games with these, but they seem balanced. The fact that
you c=
an get lots of nobs is a plus. (I figure 4+ armour and a save is as good as=
 5+ armour), also they have a higher AF and cost a point less.

Eldar:Thes=
e seem balanced, especially compared to Epic 2Ed. Actually,
they seem slig=
htly weak in comparison to other races, mostly do to the fact that the poin=
ts values don't seem to take into account the fact that they lose moral eas=
ily and have small detachments.

Oh well, flame on. Just saw Batman and Ro=
bin by the way, it ranks as
one of the worst movies I have seen in a while=
, mostly incredibly bad
writing.
 
                        -James, the tired one.







Received on Sat Jun 21 1997 - 06:01:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:35 UTC