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

From: sauron1 <sauron1_at_...>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 08:22:40 -0700

Richard Dewsbery wrote:
>
> > > is it really _necessary_ that the doomweaver use a different
> > template?
> > > Does it really make the game better that the ordinatus shield is
> > > different from a kustorm deflector shied and a knight shield?
> > > To quote the Tick "Egad! What's the point!"
> > >
> > 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...
>
> I disagree completely. The Epic concept was to give big, sweeping
> battles - giving us the big picture where WH40k concentrates on the
> individual men and weapons, the "fine detail". One of the biggest
> problems in 1st ed (IMNSHO) was the multiple armaments on the same troop
> stand for even basic marines. If individual weapons and special rules
> are ever important, it would be at a scale like WH. At an Epic level of
> conflict, I don't believe it should matter a great deal whether you are
> being shot by 2 lasguns or 1 bolter, or if this leman russ has 2 less
> autolaunchers than that land raider. To borrow from the more mainstream
> of wargaming, the rulesets concentrating on fine detail, accurately
> modelling everything, fall down on two points - firstly, the game
> becomes a simulation and gets bogged down with endless charts and
> special rules, and secondly it's just not posible to be accurate in
> simulating wargames in the first place. (And the first person to mention
> the big military simulations played out by the military will be sent off
> for a lesson in how those systems require supercomputers to do all the
> numbercrunching and incredibly accurate original data from primary
> sources - neither of which is remotely possible when trying to play a
> sci-fi game).
>
> The trend is towards gamesystems which allow players to concentrate on
> tactics rather than rules. I'll accept for the moment that having
> special rules for every unit forces you to think in precise terms about
> how each one is deployed, however this requires everyone to know all of
> the special rules before they can begin to think tactically. This isn't
> how warfare has ever been "in the field" and isn't neccesary to play a
> game where the players' actions decide the result.
>
> In E40k players must start to think tactically straight away - they
> cannot hide behind special units and abilities to get a win, nor can
> they whine that they didn't know about a special rule when they lose.
>
> Richard

Sauron1 writes;But it is NOT possible to play grand tactical games with 5
Orc Clans and five SM companies any more as new players could not
possibly afford that many units with GW,s current priceing.I see Epic40K
just as a 6mm version of 25mm 40k and at that level they are advocating 5
man squads as the unit of play as newcomers cannot afford whole 10 man
units any more.Smaller is better is GW,s new policy as their priceing
policy bears out!(sorry about the priceing rant!) sauron1
Received on Fri Jul 04 1997 - 15:22:40 UTC