Re: [Epic] E40k bashing...

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 17:52:22 +0200 (MET DST)

At 08:55 AM 19/7/97 -0400, Erik wrote:
>Allright, sorry to contribute to this, but I have to get this out.
>

That's OK dude, but I think you need to consider why there has been so much
"E40K bashing" on the list lately.

It's not because the game sucks (although I reserve the right to hold that
opinion), it's because the newbee player you allude to below asked

>> Return-Path: <owner-space-marine_at_...>
>> Delivered-To: agro_at_...
>> From: Foggddm_at_...
>> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:37:42 -0400 (EDT)
>> To: space-marine_at_...
>> Subject: Re: [Epic] New to Epic
>> Sender: owner-space-marine_at_...
>> Reply-To: space-marine_at_...
>>
>> Why are you opposed to E40k?


In relation to that, a bunch of people have responded.



>I for one could care less which of the existent versions of Epic each
>list member likes to play.


Thus, YOU did not pose the question. But someone who does care, did.


>I'm here to talk with other gamers, not
>discuss anti-GW feelings with bitter folks


I don't think I would describe the anti 40K fraternity as "bitter folks". I
guess you weren't on the list just prior to the release of E40K, but if you
had read the posts from that era you would know all about "bitter folks",
believe me.


>(I've got plenty of my own,
>believe me, but I'm tired of talking about it). We've got a mix of
>E40k and SM/TL players. I've noticed that most of the E40k players
>seem to keep silent when these rants occurr - which means that we've
>basically achieved a soliloquoy.
>
>I can't imagine most readers are interested in hearing how much E40k
>sucks (I've played it a lot now, and it does not suck and I'm not a
>newbie when it comes to wargaming) or how much GW sucks (we all know
>that already). If that makes you feel good, fine, but I for one would
>prefer to not have to read it.


Try deleting the messages - it works for me...


> A lot of the bashing also comes in the
>form of 'look what they did to the armies!'. I realize what happened,
>but as far as criticizing the game itself - you have to play it to
>criticize it and I've seen what appears to be a lot of criticism from
>non-players. I wouldn't go around dissing SM/TL when I've only played
>it once a few years ago or never. That just can't be a truly informed
>opinion.


You may right, but not many people have to be run over by a car before they
work out that it would be a bad thing. Some things can be studied from afar
and it is still possible to draw accurate assessments...


>
>I'm interested in hearing about SM/TL and what units were in it and
>what tactics were like, etc. I greatly enjoyed all the posts
>converting knights, squats, battle honors, et. al. to Epic 40k. I've
>also read and learned from every post on SM/TL. When a new gamers asks
>which to play, instead of acting like our politicians, how about we
>point out what's good about 'our' system rather than what we think is
>bad about the other? As far as I can tell, they're both very enjoyable
>games - is there something wrong with that?


I don't see how there can be something wrong with that...

Agro


>
>Regards,
>
>- Erik
>
>"Look within. Within is the fountain of good, and it will ever bubble
>up, if you will ever dig."
>- Marcus Aurelius
>
>
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC