>> My question is should I buy the old Epic (and if so do I get Space Mar=
ine
>> or do I only need Titan Legions) or should I get Epic40k.
>
> Well, =
what exactly are you looking for?
>
> If you do buy the old Epic, you just =
need to get
>Titan Legions, plus the expansion box for whatever army
>you w=
ish to play - ie if you want a Chaos or Eldar army,
>you need Renegades; fo=
r space marines or imperial guard
>you need Armies of the Imperium, etc etc=
. The expansions
>tended to run around $30-$35, so you'll be paying that
>=
much more for the old game.
>
> Also, GW has repackaged all the plactic & m=
etal
>figs in smaller (and more expensive) groupings than before.
>Unless y=
ou have a source to the old plastic infantry boxes,
>you might not want to =
get into the old edition. You'd
>need to buy a lot of the new boxes in ord=
er to field the
>proper detachments, which are of a fixed size.
Yep, and t=
he vehicles come in packs of 4 while most detachments
are formed from group=
s of 3 or 5 units (you can't vary the number),
so you will end up with surp=
luse (wasted) units
>> Any other comments on the two systems would be apre=
ciated but I understand
>> that you've probably already had this discussion=
(sp?) and don't wan't to
>> have repeat everything again.
>
> The basic ru=
les of SM/TL were mucho simpler than
>the rules for E40k. However, many of=
the units in the
>older edition had their own set of special rules whereas=
>in E40k all the units are fairly vanilla.
Just to throw in my $.02, I pl=
ayed SM/TL for about 3 years before
40k came out. There is absolutely no d=
oubt in my mind that e40k
is a better _game_. The rules are smoother and t=
he whole system
is much more integrated, while SM/TL was a crazy patchwork =
of rules,
suppliments, errata, house rules, and general frustration ("okay,=
I shot my shokk attakk gun at the phantom titan, now what the hell
do we d=
o about the holofields?").
The flip side of that is that all the special r=
ules and general
confusion also meant each army had a very individual feel,=
that
is lost to a degree in e40k. Only the orks had shokk attack guns
and=
dragsta fields, only the eldar had waveserpents. The inter-
action of the=
se special units caused no end of rules questions
and debates (literally. =
They still continue). Despite Argo's
previous assertion, there is no way t=
his game could ever have
possibly been flawless. It's like a house built o=
n quicksand, you
can plaster over the walls and make it livable, but it is
=
fundamentally unsound and no superficial makeover will change
that. To get=
an idea of what I'm talking about, visit Allan
McCarley's home page and ch=
eck out the errata for the old epic.
Keep in mind that this does not includ=
e 2 seperate official Q&As
that came out in WD 173 and 175.
In a way, SM/T=
L had a much more WH40k feel. Alot of the games
revolved around picking th=
e right weapon to screw your opponent
(and winning initiative). It was bas=
ically "your hoeky
cheesy unit against my hoeky cheesy unit". It was balan=
ced
because everybody had hoeky cheesy units, but it wasn't what
I called s=
trategy, though it was still very fun (at least, I
liked it). If you like =
the special rules aspect of WH40k,
you'll prefer SM/TL.
For example, an el=
dar phantom titan can reduce a warlord titan to
a pile of slag with a singl=
e volley (2x pulsars, 2x laser wings),
while having these great holofields =
and high armor saves that will
turn aside almost any fire. Unfortunately, =
the holofields don't
work against barrage weapons, so when you fight eldar,=
always
bring your artillery. And so the game goes. The strategy revolves=
more around having the right unit in the right situation.
Also, alot of t=
he "variation" of units came down to picking
whether you want to fire 2 dic=
e hitting on a 5+ at 50 cm, or one
die hitting on a 4+ at 75 cm. For examp=
le, I learned very
early with the orks that it makes no difference whether =
I put
gobsmashas, wartracks, bikes, shorchers, or bowelburnas in my
Kult of=
Speed. I had 5 vehicles that all did the same thing:
went fast and got sh=
ot (instead of the nobz :). Minor variations
in CAF and armor made absolut=
ely no difference in the outcome of
the game. Whether or not I brought the=
Kult of speed made a
huge difference, but not the actual unit composition.=
E40k is much more like a traditional napoleonics game. There is
less uni=
t variation, but maneuver is much more important. Many
of the special rule=
s were condensed into general unit types.
For example, Pulsa rokkits, wave =
serpents, and doomweavers are
all now lumped together as disrupt weapons, w=
hile before they were
each governed by a unique set of speical rules. Howe=
ver, if you
step back and ask "what is the net effect of using these weapon=
s?"
then in truth, they performed very similar roles (except the wave
serpe=
nt was a transport): you fired them into massed troop
formations and troop=
s in terrain to try to break them up and
hopefully kill some.
In my old gr=
oup, we divided SM/TL games into three phases:
choosing your army, deployin=
g your army, and everything
else. That is, selecting the army was more imp=
ortant
than what you actually did with on the board. But having the
right =
units was only usefull if you put it in the right spot,
because you can't a=
fford to spend 1-2 turns of a 3 turn game
redeploying a unit. E40k is more=
slanted towards the table
top maneuver aspect. Choosing your army is stil=
l very important,
but not as critical.
They're both excellent games, but I=
would personally opt for e40k,
if for no other reason than because you wil=
l constantly be looking
for progressively scarcer support for SM/TL.
Actua=
lly, I think you were a bit hard on 2ed. The rules were fairly sound, they =
only broke down on a few ocations, You mentioned one. Of course there were =
lots of special rules that did not cause arguments and were still fun. For =
instance weirdboyz, Deathstalkers, deamons causing fear, the Avatar, these =
all added a little to the game without having a big effect.
--------------=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------
"Your incorrect assumptions are threefold."
"You assu=
me law still reigns in the Five Galaxies"
"You assume that we would be boun=
d by precedents and precepts from the last 10 million years."
"But your mos=
t incorrect assumption of all is to assume that we care."
-David Bri=
n, Infinity's Shore
-----------------------------------------------------Ja=
mes Nugent----------------------------------------
- application/ms-tnef attachment: stored
Received on Fri Jul 18 1997 - 18:19:19 UTC