Re: [Epic] New to Epic

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 03:41:02 +0200 (MET DST)

At 02:40 PM 18/7/97 -0400, you wrote:
>"Miller, Chris" <CMiller_at_...> writes:
>
>> >Foggddm_at_... writes:
>> >Q: Will our old miniatures be usable in the new system?
>> >A: Absolutely! No doubt about it! (About that emphatic, though the
>> >words are a bit off)
>> >
>> >I'd like to see you put your Knights and Squats to good use without
>> >using unofficial rules like Citadel Journal.
>>
>> Yep, my 2 other most regular players: One did Orks and SQUATS...
>> (pissed him off - no interest in the new version)
>>
>> and the other did Chaos and an Imperial army based on KNIGHTS...
>> (Kinda sucks when they take out one of the most recent
>> armies added to the game, especially when they aren't even in
>> 40K, so there's no conflict with anything.)
>
>
>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.)
>
>> ----> 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.
>
>> ----> 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!
>
>:)
>
> (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 would say that you are unaware of the rules clarification that states that
a THawk must come on from your table edge (and not ANY table edge, as was
originally implied).

This is probably a good example of GW at work. It's good in as much as they
did fix their mistake, but bad in as much as you needed to be pretty
dedicated to track down al of the rules errata.


> 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.)


Actually, if I'm facing Eldar I put my troops in rhinos or don't bring the
THawks (yes, that's plural!!!) on until I've dealt with some of the
innumerable Firestorms I know I will be facing :-)

Agro


>
> Oh, you're talking E40k. Sorry, the old t-hawk just brings
>back nightmares when I think about it.
>
>Mark
>
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC