Defending the undefendable, was Re: [OFFICIAL] Salvo Missiles etc.

On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, Peter Ramos wrote:

> I agree. It seems GW's rules quality, instead of maturing with
> experience, just gets worse. Almost everywhere there seems to be
nothing
> but contempt for this "epic 40K".

Which is too bad, since it IMO is a better game for large battles
than the old Space Marine/Titan Legions ever was. Sure, SM/TL had
more details, but E40K plays much faster. 

Note, however, that E40K works best for the battles that are too
large for easy DSII or SM/TL play! If I have to choose a rules set
for fielding all my 6mm SF troops (...about 14,000 old Space Marine
pts of both Orks and Eldar, and something looking roughly equivalent
to 6-7000 old pts of other companies' stuff), then E40K is it. For
smaller engagements, I'd prefer DSII instead.

And while I'm talking GW, let's discuss their pricing... While I
think that they charge quite a lot, some of their model ranges
(specifically, Space Fleet re-cast ships and several of their Epic
tanks) cost about as much as, or only slightly more than, competing
companies' products (Space Fleet ships are roughly comparable to
buying from GZG, at least if they didn't raise the prices during the
last month; £5 for a largish capital ship isn't bad IMO). 

Of course I live in a backwater gaming-wise (meaning there aren't
many minis available in the shops), but even when I order those old
models directly from the manufacturers (including GW), GW are in the
middle of the crowd price-wise. As long as I don't try to keep up
with the newest released models (and, of course, don't mind GW's
somewhat odd designs) they don't cost me more (per model) than
anything else I can get here :/

Later,

Oerjan Ohlson

"Life is like a sewer.
 What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
 -Hen3ry