RE: [Epic] New to Epic

From: Miller, Chris <CMiller_at_...>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 16:09:16 -0500

>
>Yeah, Aaron's still got the best complaint of them all. Squats,
>Knights, and an all-Titan force. (Great, so I've got 6 Warlords who
>*all* now have 3 HWBs and a Death ray. How exciting.)

----> See my previous post about "fire control centre's and the
deathstrike
cannon" or "why my nastiest warlord is now a museum piece". I think
members of the corvus assault pod crew are a bit upset as well.
        Can't really complain too much. I have 4 different armies (Impierals,
 Orks, Eldar, & Chaos in order of time spent playing them) so I dodged a
bullet this time. My buddies weren't so lucky.
>
>> ----> Well the IG lost those in the 40K codex, so I wasn't surprised,
>> but I
>> will be intersted to see how the IG infantry come out - lots of
>> different
>> types in 40K as far as looks. They lost some of their speedy stuff,
>> but they have more & better tank options now - it wasn't completely
>> one-sided.
>
> No, I'm not really complaining about their power level.
>They're still a viable force. But in both E40k and WH40k, the waves
>of infantry approach to the game fail. It seems wildly inappropriate
>somehow to only be able to win with columns of tanks.

----> It's the WW2 Russian army approach: Mediocre infantry and
nice tanks. I don't mind too much, as tanks in 40K are more target
than threat. Nice to see a game go the other way. You're right though
as I have yet to see anyone take an all-infantry IG force. Even with
arty,
>I'm not sure it would do well.
>> ----> Absolutely no problem with the old mini's.We "reluctant
>> transitioners"
>> have to stick together. Can I still use my flying brick t-hawks?
>
> No way! They're cheesy!
>
>:)

---> You know, I actually had someone comment about old mini's in
general when we were setting up a game one time. This guy thought
that since older mini's were usually smaller, then people using them
WERE
cheesy as they were harder to hit with blast markers and could hide
easier.
Specifically , we were talking about the 40K marine dreadnoughts and
epic T-Hawks. This guy was upset as he had lost a game because his
multi-melta template wasn't quite big enough to nail an old DN, and his
opponent "wouldn't give it to me". Personally, I thought this was a new
low
in whiny excusemaking: "his mini was too small". Please.
(Disclaimer: I am the proud owner of two(2) of the old T-hawks and two
(2) of the old 40K Dreadnoughts)

> (Seriously, for 50 points, they're nearly unstoppable. I
>*hated* having a vortex missile land in my backfield just because some
>damn (damned?) marines teleported in behind my Firestorm's firing arc
>and I can't wipe them out in FF because I'm facing front. I got used
>to writing off a vehicle detachment the instant I knew I was playing
>Chaos. Fortunately, he limited himself to 1 T-hawk, so I wasn't
>clobbered as bad as the much-discussed all T-hawk army. God, what an
>awful force that would be to face on a regular basis.)
>
> Oh, you're talking E40k. Sorry, the old t-hawk just brings
>back nightmares when I think about it.
>
>Mark
----> yeah, my chaos opponent was getting _real_ tired of my veterans
or termies dropping out all over his cannons of khorne. After the third
time this happened, he started putting chaos squats all around 'em.
Helped him some, but there's always a target. Now that there are
some effective AA measures, I think it's a little harder...
(well, especially since they're bigger and all)

Chris Miller

>
Received on Fri Jul 18 1997 - 21:09:16 UTC