At 04:18 AM 1/7/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
>
Right on dude!
Agro
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC