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

From: Miller, Chris <CMiller_at_...>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 12:13:07 -0500

>> The point is that the whole Epic concept was designed for (let's face
>> it), people with an eye for detail.
snip
let's call it "broad detail" (I know, I know, I'll get to it...)
 
>> 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.
      snip
        As someone else said, it's the M:TG paradigm.

>II 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.
        snip
                On a table, a 3000pt + battle in 2nd looked GREAT...

>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.
        snip
                I didn't hear "complicated" as much as I heard
                "I have to buy how many boxes to get all
                of the rules ???"

>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.
        
        There were some things 2nd ed did right - It was set up
to play fairly quickly, the main rules were not that complicated, it was
not organized especially well, but that could be overcome with a new
set, not a drastic change in rules. True, many units had unique stat
lines but performed similar functions - so what? Photocopy your army's
stat sheet and keep it out during the battle. Photocopy your enemy's -
fine! TL cleaned up the Psychic & flyer problems somewhat, so progress
had been made on the rules front.
        My biggest problem with E40K is that they went too far the other
way. The units still feel somewhat generic to me. Many units with
similar
battlefield roles were combined (like Ork lights and tanks) into one
unit
type. Others were not (Predator, Razorback, Leman Russ, Demolisher,
Hellhound. Chimera/Rhino). And Infantry...good lord does anyone think
there's a need for that many different infantry types when the game is
supposed to be 'simpler"? Infantry really can be :heavy weapons, grunts,
or close combat, and some races have just this, but some have way too
many. Skar boyz and Nobz BOTH? What is their role - assaults! Why
have two assault troop types? Eldar lose their different aspects as
they are lumped into "aspect warriors" despite some very different roles
for Dark Reapers vs Scorpions vs Swooping Hawks. It's inconsistent.
There are some very obvious ways to arrange these units, yet they
chose not to. We've all seen the Aspect breakdown on this list and it
was pretty straightforward.
        E40K is definitely different, I'm just not sure it's better.The main
reason I played Epic is that it looked good on the table, and the rules
were
pretty simple - yet it was still fun to play. Throw out a ton of mini's
and
smash 'em up for a few hours - tanks, infantry, titans, buildings - all
of it was fun. People see a WH40K game and say it's cool. Then they
see an Epic scale game and really get interested. Anytime we were
up at a store, more people would watch epic than any fantasy or
40K. It looked pretty detailed, but it was was easy to grasp the basics.
Call it "broad detail". Lots of different units (hopefully painted) but
it was
easy to get thru a turn.
        Final Note: I still see a lot of rules questions on this list. It's
still new, so maybe these will go away, but anytime a new unit comes
out, there are going to be questions (as with SM/TL). Do you really
think
that this box is it? Think about GW. Do you honestly think that 1 year
from now there will be nothing (other than mini's) on the shelf for E40K
besides the Big Box? There's talk of the 3rd edition of WH40K coming
out next spring, and at least one new race (a cyber-alien type race or
skaven from fantasy - that's the rat-race). Think you won't see them?
Once the expansions start to roll, we will be back to many of the same
issues as SM/TL.

Chris Miller
Received on Thu Jul 03 1997 - 17:13:07 UTC