>
> I dissagree somewhat that e40k lacks the variety of SM (unless you
> define variety as a mass of poorly defined and conflicting rules).
>
Pooly defined? I think we could all agree that Epic SM/TL in fact had
THE most defined wargaming system in existance, with the amount of
fine-tuning that people like us did to it over the years. After
(carefully) re-reading the Epic 40K rules, I feel that they are far
from "better defined" or "less problematic". Rather, I feel that the
"glitches" of SM/TL have very much been transfered into the new
system, but because we have already confronted and debated them, we
just do not notice their existance any more. For example; LOS was
always a big issue in the old Epic... Now, you don't even need it (in
assaults and FF). Is Epic 40K really a better game simply because it
sweeps the problems of somplexity under the rug and therefore makes
the game less stimulating?
Confilicting? Maybe so, but that could never have been helped (if
variety was not to be severely compromised)
Personally, before the advent of Epic 40K, I always felt that SM/TL
was by far the best table-top wargame on the market, and for 10 years
it proved more than satisfactory for us gamers. Don't let GW tell you
that it's long-standing game is all of a sudden unweildy and
unplayable, simply to get your $$. I liked SM before Epic 40K, and I
will not simply turn away from what I believe is STILL the undisputed
king of table-top gaming. Because someone tells me it is now crap.
Christian
_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at
http://www.rocketmail.com
Received on Tue Jul 01 1997 - 11:18:51 UTC