Re: [Epic] Hello (E40K???)

From: David Lado <lado_at_...>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 16:45:32 -0400 (EDT)

>>
>> 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.

I don't call a game with an errata twice as long as the original
rules set "refined". I call it a mess, and the games designers
called it a mess. The point is, whenever you have a special
rule, it will create rules questions (example: rampagers,
flyers, Hvy-weapons+exarchs, ect). E40k has a couple of
dozen special rules. SM/TL had special rules for about half
the units in the game. Furthermore, clarifications to the
e40k rules affect all the armies in the same way. Compare that
to the tyical SM/TL questions that usually went along the lines
of: "What happens when I shoot a Shokk attakk gun at an
ordinatus shield", which doesn't help at all to answer the
question "what happens when I shoot a shokk attakk gun at a
holofield?" Similarly, asking "What happens when I shoot a
doomweaver at a unit hit by a waveserpent?" doesn't help
answer "What happens when I shoot a doomweaver at a unit hit
by a distortion cannon?" Each weapon in SM/TL was unique, and
there-fore could have a huge possible number of interactions
with other unique weapons, each one of which needed a special
unique rule to deal with it. Explaining to opponents exactly
what a Shokk Attack Gun did to what units when was confusing
to every new opponent I played.

The very fact that it took *years* for us to debug the game with
the co-operation of the rules authors (and the job was never fully
completed, since the rules debates went on to the day e40k came
out). The game still isn't fully debugged, it's just playable by
veteraqns who have reams of house rules and unwritten assumptions
that have built up with experience. Futhermore, this Q&As
took place in a medium that is available to only a minority
of players and can't really be considered an official fix.

>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.

That is far more true for SM/TL than it is for e40k. Anyone who has
switched playing groups can tell you that there are a tremendous
number of unwritten assumptions and agreements that players make,
involving everything from when it's okay to measure, to how LOS is
judeged, how ranges are judged, the effects of certain weapons
(including the doomweaver/waveserpent quagmire). If anything, many
of the rules questions in e40k rise out of the fact that these
assumptions didn't exist, therefore they had to be settled anew.
For example, there are a couple of question in the e40k Q&A about
rounding up or down in certain situations, and several others
about how BMs affect SHWs. All of these will eventually pass
on into unwritten rules assumptions. The same thing happened in
SM/TL.

E40k has it's bugs for sure, but it is less problomatic now that SM/TL
was at its best. To defend SM/TL, it should be said that the problems
it had accrued slowly over the release of the multiple supliments,
each with new units and new special rules. The original rules were
much tighter than the final set (but still not perfect). It is too
early to tell whether e40k will travel the same path, but it at
least has the advantages of retrospect (do the primarchs have an
upward learning curve? ;) and a much more flexible core rules set.

>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?

I definetely think so. Measuring LOS from a models eye view was
totally arbitrary and added nothing to the enjoyment of the game.

>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.

I never said it was crap. I played it and I loved it (still do). But
I've played alot of minatures games, and I can say this. There are
napoleonics games with 3-4 different types of units, and 3 different
morale grades (9-12 different combinations) and nice simple rules
sets that are every bit as fun a SM/TL or e40k. I think the idea of
"more is better" is very much fostered by GW to keep people buying
new stuff.

That's not to say I don't like the variation, I think
it's one of the neat schticks of GW games versus other games, and
I eagerly await the release of my new ork goodies (consume!). But
I definetly think SM/TL went too far. One of the things I noticed
about the orks (it may be true of e40k too, but I don't know) is
that all their unit variation did not really translate into a
variety of tactical options. That is, I could play around with
the units I put in my army, subsitituting this clan for that,
or these vehicles for those, but it didn't really change the way
I played my army. I basically had about 4 overall strategic
options to choose from, and I could tweek my army selection to
match the strategy I wanted to use.

IMO, what it takes to make a good game is a good play balance,
clear rules, and a system that allows the players to make meaningful
decisions that affect the outcome of the game (i.e. tactics). Having
a thousand different unit options does not necessarily make the game
more fun. For example, does it really make a difference in
the enjoyment of a game whether I sweep round the enemys flank with
a windhost vs a kult of speed vs a marine biker detachement? Not
really, they are the same unit with some of the stats rearranged
to make them slightly different from each other, but their basic
function is the same.

David
Received on Tue Jul 01 1997 - 20:45:32 UTC