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

From: Andy Skinner <askinner_at_...>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 08:25:13 -0500

Christian Nielsen wrote:
> The point is that the whole Epic concept was designed for (let's face
> it), people with an eye for detail. I mean, come on; 6mm tall troops
> and vehicles that are only just big enough to pick up with your
> fingers. Only a few of the Epic players I've met over the years have
> not fallen into this group...
>
> Epic is a game for articulate (let's go as far as to say obsessive)
> people. You have to be or else the game would drive you mad. It
> appears that GW has turned away from these people to a degree, but
> have at the same time embraced another mindset of games. I will not
> say that this is a good or bad thing, but for those that DO think that
> complexity adds to the game, it is a real kick in the shins.

I think you've extrapolated from yourself and your own group.

This doesn't sound like me at all. I agree that GW may have gone
too far in simplifying, but not by a great extent. I wouldn't have
minded in 2nd edition if there had been only one kind of shield,
make it work like void shields. (Well, the deflector shield would
have been pretty uninteresting like that, I'll admit.) I mostly
play miniatures games because I like to play with toys. I like
games in general, but a miniatures game is both a game and a lot
of toys. (I'm 33, not 8. :-) I play Epic just because the idea
of using tanks and stuff appeals to me. I'm glad that the models
are as small as they are because I'm not obsessive--I don't think
I'd paint larger figures well at all. (Not that I'm all that great
with Epic ones, but if I had to paint all the detail on big figs, I'd
be in trouble.) I want the game to play quickly and simply (has
to do with convincing others to play--the most common comment from
people I've gotten to play with me was that it was fun, but it just
takes too long and is too complicated. I've lived in Massachusetts
for 2 months now, and don't yet know any gamers. My wife is my
most common opponent. I want simple rules! (Actually, I do find
E40K more complex to explain to her, and I'm sure I haven't found
all the rules, with them spread through 3 books.) I don't want
special rules. I don't mind much having a lot of things with different
stats, but I don't want a lot of exceptions.

My other requirement is for the game to feel right. It is hard
to explain, but there are parts of 2nd and E40K that don't sit
well with me, like the way close combat/assault works in either
game. This means pseudo-realism :-). It doesn't have to fit
with reality (I am _not_ a military expert), but it just has to
make sense. I didn't like charging units in 2nd to be able to
charge across the field without getting shot at except by the
stands that got charged. (I think if I were to play 2nd again
I'd say that charging units moved their normal difference in
the movement phase and again in close combat, sorta like E40K.
I don't know whether I'd move CC phase after advance fire.)
I don't like firefights being less effective (in terms of killing
units) in E40K, or the resolution of close assaults or firefights.
(I wish they were combined into one action, and not based on one
die from each side.)

Anyway, although I want the rules to reflect the battle in a way
that feels right to me, I want them to do it through the main rules,
not through special rules and exceptions. There is a lot that can
be done by using the same rules and a few exceptions, but 2nd
IMO was full of exceptions.

The point of all this is that it isn't necessarily true that all real
Epic players prefer the complexity of 2nd. Many of us are intelligent
people that like to play a game, and possibly do it for different
reasons than you. You are welcome to enjoy whichever edition suits
you better, but I don't think that is the definition of Epic gaming.
And we aren't necessarily just taking GW's word for it that the new
game is better.

I like some from each, myself.

andy
askinner_at_...
Received on Thu Jul 03 1997 - 13:25:13 UTC