RE: [Epic] E40k bashing...

From: Miller, Chris <CMiller_at_...>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 09:45:08 -0500

>Allright, sorry to contribute to this, but I have to get this out.

----> No one said this couldn't be theraputic...
>
>I for one could care less which of the existent versions of Epic each
>list member likes to play. I'm here to talk with other gamers, not
>discuss anti-GW feelings with bitter folks (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.
----> The only answer to this is that it's not the "E40K" mailing list -
it's
the Epic mailing list or the "space-marine" mailing list, so if someone
wants
to talk about epic in any of it's forms, they're gonna do it here. It's
entirely possible that on this list, not every post may be relevant to
you.
You can't discuss things with more than 2 people if they're posted
privately
so they have to go to the list. We all tend to veer off-topic regularly
anyway, so what starts as a rant may end up giving a recipie for a
really
nice cream pie...
>
>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. 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.

----> Bought it in April, played it several times, played old Epic since
it
was new too, so if someone asks "which is better" which is where most
of this series of posts came from, I think I'll pop off...
        As far as the "look what they did to the armies" comment, well, we've
played this, supported it, overcome conflicting situations, and spent
 one hell of a lot of money on it, so when someone messes with the
amry structures, we get annoyed. Remember, this is "Epic - the new
edition", not "A completely different game" (at least that's how it was
originally presented) so when the rules change, fine, but when the
mini has no place anymore...ouch. Also, where do you think the
knight, squat, etc. lists come from ? It's those of us stuck with
armies unsupported in the new system trying to make them work
>with the new rules - from frustration comes creation...
>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?
>
>Regards,
>
>- Erik
>
When someone asks which is better, I'm going to compare the good
and the bad for both. I ended up recommending he go with E40K precisely
because it is the current system, and will see more support in the
future.
I'm not sure that monthly add-ons from a 5$ magazine are the method I
would
choose for support, but it's better than nothing. I also recommended if
he was really interested in SM/TL, find someone who already has it and
play
a few times, rather than rying to buy it outright.
        There's a lot of talk on this list, but I think less of it is bashing
E40K
than you think. Quite a bit of it is adding/modifying/changing E40K, but
how many posts have nothing to say but "Gw sucks and E40K sucks"?
Most people have something to add beyond that.

Chris Miller
>
Received on Mon Jul 21 1997 - 14:45:08 UTC