Re: [Epic] Full Game -Reply

From: sauron1 <sauron1_at_...>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 03:38:28 -0700

Brett Hollindale wrote:
> At 10:25 AM 16/7/97 -0400, you wrote:
> > What's the problem with Epic 40,000? I just joined the list today
> >(7/16/97). Looks pretty interesting to me, but I would like your comments.
> >That is unless I'm opening a can of worms that all of you have gone
> >through already. I think Space Marine battles on a large scale would be
> >interesting. Granted they would not be as detailed in the weapons
> >choices, etc., but that wouldn't be that bad. If it got as detailed as the
> >man-to-man stuff in WH40K, it would end up looking like the Advanced
> >Squad Leader section of my gaming self and I would have that same
> >dazed and confused look on my face that I get after trying to understand
> >ASL combat rules involving caves. If they loose a little detailing in the
> >transition, that doesn't mean they have to discard the "flavor" of the
> >game. Brave desperate heroes defending the Empire (or toppling it
> >depending on your troop preference). I'm interested in comments, unless
> >as I said before, you folks have already beaten this horse to within an
> >inch of its life.
> >
> >Keith Shuler
> >
> >
> It's not so much that 2nd edition is vastly superior to E40K, it's more that
> E40K is sooooo superfluous!
> After 5-10 years of play testing, of answering player's questions, of fine
> tuning - it would have been possible to release a 3rd Edition EPIC that was
> quite literally faultless.
> Instead, GW tossed the baby out with the bath water, wrote E40K from scratch
> (borrowing heavily from a varirty of games - only some of which they hold
> the copyrite for...) and spat heavily upon the folks who have supported 2nd
> Ed for so long.
> GW: "All of the figures from 2nd Ed will be compatible with E40K"
> Except that half (or more "aren't significant on the EPIC scale" and aren't
> included in the E40K rules. Perhaps "compatible" refered to the fact that
> they were the same scale?
> GW: "Infantry will be completely compatible"
> Again, what little of it remains... It might be true that the shape of the
> base doesn't matter to most folks, but it would not be true universally...
> Of course, the folks who owned 2nd Ed aren't important to GW because they've
> already spent their money. What they (GW) needed was a new game with a
> whole new target audience - hence E40K. (And the figures are so coool, you
> won't mind paying more for less... Unquote.)
> It may well be a fine game. It may even be "the best game we've (GW) ever
> produced" but it sure hasn't grabbed anyone in my gaming circles...
> As you can no doubt tell, I believe that they (GW) have taken something that
> wasn't broken and "fixed" it.
> No, I haven't bought the game. No I don't intend to...
> Agro

Sauron1 writes;Agro! make that two of us! sauron1
Received on Sat Jul 19 1997 - 10:38:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:39 UTC