> 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.
I said it was extremely well DEfined, not REfined!
> The very fact that it took *years* for us to debug the game with
> the co-operation of the rules authors
I think that this is a bonus to the game. How many other games have
been so well scrutinised and picked at? The finished product is a
masterpiece!
> >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.
The character of the game came from its complexities. Some of us
actually liked playing an intellectually stimulating game.
>>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 was referring to people like JJ and AC
> But I definetly think SM/TL went too far.
To tell you the truth, I never once felt that SM/TL went too far
untill I went into a GW store AFTER the release of E40K. I was
horrified when a staff member started trying to convince me that there
were huge problems with SM/TL. I was like "Yeah... OK.... Have you
ever actually PLAYED the game?" I felt that anyone who knew the game
would never trash it ("trash" is a maybe to harsh a word).
Problem=$$$
> 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.
Isn't the idea of having several "unique" armies so that each only has
limited tactical options? ie. IG are MEANT to simply sit back and
shoot; I have not seen too many Tyranid armies doing that. In fact,
not many tyranid armies do much more than simply run at their
opponent. This I believe is the challenge to playing any particular
army; the idea is to master the (few) strategies available to that
army. If each army could have a huge set of viable tactics, there
would be no point in having different armies at all.
Christian
_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at
http://www.rocketmail.com
Received on Wed Jul 02 1997 - 07:11:37 UTC