| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:45 pm
Posts: 85
|
|
I prefer to think of the term as learning how to play against a particular army.
You can't fight every army the same way. You need strategy and tactics to win you the day.
To me it seems to me that people who say it's non-constructive seem to be people who want to play a bland "do it this way and never change your tactics" kind of game.
A "batter myself against the opponent's forces the same way everytime you play" mentality doesn't win you games IMO. You need to learn what the enemy is capable of and deal with it differently to beat him. This is far more pleasing a way to play IMO.
Slow the "you're stupid and don't know how to play" train down here a bit, sport. I've been at this a VERY long time, and I can assure you, I am well versed in how to play, strategy, and tactics.
And, the thing is, I agree with you. Many, many things can be overcome with smart play. I was simply telling you not everyone sees it that way, and some won't like such a suggestion. Not because they are bad players or one-trick ponies...simply because of the suggestion that something isn't "broken" because you CAN beat it.
Remember, also...something "broken" in the hands of a bad player becomes meaningless many times. Doesn't really matter if ITS good if THEY aren't.
And, counter to that, something which is really, really good, but perhaps not quite broken, can very easily become so in the hands of the skilled or those who choose to abuse it.
Isn't that WHY we have these discussions? To weed out those units, rules, and so forth that are either broken or easily abusable? To do something about stupidity in the ruleset?
If we make Tau jump packs some bland cookie-cutter rule just to appease those who can't seem to deal with them, you'll be taking out a bit of flavour from the list and if you start doing this with every unit in the game well Epic is gonna die - again.
Keep the flavour please. It's what makes this game fun and interesting. If I want bland I'll play 40K thanks...
How is changing the special rule for Jump Packs from 10cm move when Engaged to 10cm move after they complete certain actions qualifying as a "cookie cutter" rule or a "loss of flavor" to you? No one else gets to do this. The Eldar get to do something similar, yet very different. Only the Tau would have this rule, and you would be using it every turn, as opposed to only when you were Engaged. Which of those if more "flavorful?"
"Flavorful" does not need to equate to "overpowered" in order to keep variety in the lists.
Can we PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!! stop bringing 40K rules into Epic discussions?!
The games share fluff. They don't share rules systems. People argue that "that's not how 40K plays it". Well you're right, it doesn't. But this isn't 40K! Stop trying to interject rules from 40K into Epic. It's very tiring. Think about Epic in a more abstract way. You'll be better for it I promise you.
40K tactical squads run around in groups of 10 men. Epic Tactical formations run around in groups of 30 men. There's a massive difference between the systems and I like it! If you want to play 40K in epic scale go back to playing Epic 40K - that was a winner wasn't it?
While I am as big a fan of 40k bashing as the next guy, I think this might be pretty narrow-minded. A LOT of the people who seem to be developing these lists are trying very hard to make 1-for-1 conversions between 40k and Epic, and, when that proves impossible in some instances, they go for as close as they can get.
Again, I agree with you in principle...one should not march in lock-step with 40k when writing the completely different rules system of Epic. But so many things DO translate so easily that we would be stupid not to do such conversions when we are able. The fluff is another thing that should be drawn from (but not taken for gospel).
In the end, the deciding factor has to be, "does it work under the Epic rules?" If the answer is yes, and it can be while drawing on the other two sources I mentioned, thats probably the best way to go. If nothing else, simply for consistencies' sake. Not to mention the fact that there are probably thousands of times more 40k players than Epic players...if you are trying to make Epic survive, wouldn't it be nice to be able to draw in some of these players by enticing them with better gameplay for an army they already enjoy using? As opposed to going the snob route, and saying "Oh, the game is completely different, AND the army you are using doesn't really share anything with its Epic equivilent except a name."
Because THAT'LL draw in the crowds, let me tell you.
40k has some crappy game mechanics in general (ugo-igo, the lackluster survivability of vehicles, ugly codex creep to name just a few), but it also has an utter boatload of really cool concepts, ideas, and rules. Why not cherry-pick the best of what is there, steal the cool concepts, and make them actually work in the better rules system?
I'm thinking that the alternate suggestion for Jetpack movement might be a better way of doing that than the current rule.
One more thing... there's a stream of thought that we should avoid as many special rules as possible because Jervis said so. Well, sadly, Jervis has pretty much ABANDONED this game. I've not heard boo from him for years.
If a special rule gives something flavour well I'm all for it. Ok we don't go overboard with them but some lists need them to flesh out their feel.
Honestly, I'm not sure I understand this mentality either. I mean, yes. There has to be a limit on special rules for an army, or it just becomes silly. I run into that a lot in Fantasy...the Special Rules in some of the army books take up multiple pages. Sometimes its like playing an entirely different game depending on what army book your opponent is using. That can be fun, but it can also be really frustrating at times.
I don't think Epic is anywhere near that yet, by any means.
Take the Epic Tyranid discussion for example...I have seen multiple comments on how "we already have FOUR special rules for them! We CAN'T have any more!"
Well, that one way to look at it, I guess. To me, I hardly think Voracious and Regeneration really even count as "special" rules. But, in some people's views, they are most definitely so, because they are add-ons to the list, not present in the main rules.
So, I understand the view on limiting the number of odd rules attached to a specific list. But I tend to agree with you...a few more here and there might not hurt. In fact, they might help quite a bit.
Unfortunately, the Epic rules discussions are just a complete and utter mess right now. Dozens of lists floating around, hundreds of ideas, millions of opinions, and no real leadership from the company that owns the rights to the actual game. I find the entire thing to be a bit sad, actually. You talk about Epic dying...well, my friend, the complete and total lack of any form of support or promotion from GW will pretty much ensure its untimely demise, until at some point they decide to dust off a "golden oldie" and resurrect it in yet another incarnation 10 years down the road. Then they'll immediately stop supporting THAT version so they can rush to market some new crap for 40k Space Marines again. 
Until then, this is what we have. Dedicated players and fans trying to keep things going and make things better. You are ALWAYS entitled to your opinion, and to argue for it...just as everyone else is. Just remember...its only your opinion, and it doesn't really count for more than anyone else's.
Some of us think the Jet Pack rule should probably be changed. 
|
|
I think I hear foot stamping going on.
