An interestingarticle, one I had not seen. Thanks for the post. But the
reason for mine is that as far as I can tell you haven't been removed from
the Epic resources page if that is the link you are referring to. You're
still there, right next to me and below Felix's Miniatures page. Hell, lets
name the last one before I get doen for equal oppertunities - your
diagonally down from Dropship!
Just thought I'd let you know.
Cheers,
Paul "TuffSkull" T.
http://tuffnett.com - TuffNett Productions Ltd.
http://epic40k.com - If its Epic, Its there! (Now an Official Warpgate
Network site!)
http://welcome.to/weird_world - Weird World Wargaming.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Webb" <Webbsoft_at_...>
To: "NetEpic Mailing List" <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 10:04 AM
Subject: [NetEpic ML] FW: Jervis
> INTERVIEW WITH JERVIS RE: EPIC AND 40k -
> ----------------------------------------
>
> (Just thought you might be interested, Games Workshop did the right thing
> when they created EPIC 40k, we are just not as sophisticated players as
> them. Note also that the Games Workshop link to us has been removed.)
>
> One of the main criticisms when the new 40k came out was that it was too
> streamlined, dumb-downed was the expression, though that seems to have
> levelled off now. Why did you start to reduce the complexity of the game?
>
> Well, there are a number of reasons - we were expecting people to react
much
> more negatively to the new edition of the game than they did, to be
honest,
> so we have been pleasantly surprised with the reaction to it. There are a
> number of answers to that. First we know from experience that although the
> game may seem streamlined now, by the time we have finished all the things
> we would like to do with it over the next few years, it will be every bit
as
> complicated and detailed as almost anything else we have done. So, you
have
> to bring things back into line when you launch a new edition. It is like
> pruning a tree, is the analogy I like to use. As games systems develop,
not
> all the things are that good as they develop, so when you get a chance to
do
> a revamp, you tend to prune it back, bring it back under control, get rid
of
> all the things that did not work, keep the things that did. But that being
> said, we were also very aware, that with 2nd edition, we had a game that
was
> fundamentally flawed on one level - you had a games system that had
> developed from a narrative skirmish game, in Rogue Trader, combined with a
> set of army lists that assumed that you were going to be fielding large
> armies, so we had a choice. We could either make the system work with
armies
> players were typically using in the game or go wholeheartedly into making
a
> it a skirmish game which works with smaller forces. All the feedback
> suggested that players did not want to have game where they fielded 30 or
40
> models and go back to that skirmish level. They wanted to use their whole
> army, so the trick was to come up with a game system that worked on that
> level. So effectively, we started from scratch again and said, ok we need
a
> game that is clean and smooth to play as Warhammer is for fantasy battles,
> and I think we achieved that. You cannot streamline a game by leaving
> everything in, it does not make sense. So some had to go, some had to be
> smoothed out, but the nature of games design is that the level of detail
in
> the game depends on the scale you are playing at. If you are playing an
game
> like Necromunda, or a skirmish or role-playing game, you can have a lot
more
> detail than when you are fielding an army of 150 models. You can put the
> detail in for a game like that, but it becomes clunky, unwieldy and does
not
> work. I think also, what players tend to underestimate very strongly is
that
> dumbing down is something that is done for younger players. Younger
players
> have no trouble with any of our systems, they pick them up very quickly.
>
>
>
> And they always forget they were youngsters once and that they had no
> trouble. . .
>
> Absolutely. In the 2nd edition of 40k, none of the younger players had any
> trouble picking it up. Rather what you tend to do as you get older and
more
> sophisticated within the hobby itself is that you learn to appreciate
> elegant games design. As a Games Designer I really like rules that do a
lot
> with very little, so you end up looking at a rule and you say, well does
> this add anything to the game, is it needed, or is it chrome just for the
> sake of chrome. You become quite zealous about that kind of thing. I have
to
> say with Epic we probably took that too far. That games design for Andy
and
> myself in many ways really captured what I am saying, it is very clean,
very
> sharp.
>
>
>
> There was a bigger out cry about streamlining the rules for Epic than
there
> was for 40k but I must admit that was the most subtle set of rules I have
> ever come across - there is a lot in just a few pages.
>
> It does a lot with a little. Now, there was a lesson we learnt. To be
honest
> of all the things I have designed, I said Blood Bowl was the best game
ever
> I believe I ever designed, but when Epic came out we were so proud of it ,
> really pleased with it. It is a game that we still love to play. We were
> very disappointed with the attitude of older players and it taught us a
lot,
> that our tastes were more sophisticated than the big bulk of the market
that
> the game was going to reach who were players who sometimes perceive
> complexity as sophistication, so we learnt that we have to throw a bit of
> grit into the games systems that players can catch on to - because they
are
> not Games Designers like us they don't, say, see this beautiful elegant
> machine, they like a bit of detail. So what you can say when we add in
bits
> of clutter and grit with the Codexes coming, that is dumbing the system
down
> in many ways. If the truth be known the Games Development team would
> probably play 40k with the lists in the rulebook, maybe stream them down a
> bit more. But you don't because you know people want more than that and so
> you have to learn to split your own desires - I am 40 years old, I have
been
> playing games since I was 11, 30 years - what I want from a wargame is
very
> different from someone who has been playing for 5 years so I have to think
> back to that time, and say my job is to give people what they want.
>
>
>
> Do you think one game system can cover everyone?
>
> No, I think there is a lot of room for different games, you'll see that
over
> the coming years Games Workshop will explore that. The difficulty we have
> with doing secondary games systems, is that it is very difficult to
maintain
> ongoing support for them , so even with a very cool game, we don't
> necessarily have all the resources available to provide support forever.
So
> we tend to bring it out and finish it, say Ok, there is the game, it is
done
> now, it is in the range. We then find it difficult to provide new stuff
for
> it if players want it, That is our current dilemma, how we deal with that
> situation.
>
>
>
> Is there a factor where games tend to feed off each other? That is one
thing
> we noticed in our group, where we play 40k and we have huge Epic armies.
> When Gothic came out we said great, we can have huge campaigns, playing
> Gothic, then down to Epic, then finally down to 40k.
>
> I think there are certain types of core game supplements, Gothic, for
> instance, or Siege for Warhammer, that allow you to potentially do very
> exciting campaigns and things. What we try to avoid doing is integrate
them
> directly, because the trick is to do it yourself, if you have Gothic, Epic
> and 40k and like the idea of running a big campaign, then you need to
> organise it and do it, that is the fun of the hobby. So it is not a
> deliberate policy to make them integrated, though it excites us to. With
> Epic one thing we liked a lot was the detachment system. You could have a
> detachment that was literally your 40k army. Interestingly it does not
make
> a very good Epic detachment, but if you are playing a campaign what you
will
> need are some detachments in Epic that you can send off to do 40k
missions.
> So funnily enough, Epic really starts to shine in a campaign setting
because
> you get hybrid organisations that are designed to be a combined arms
force,
> not terribly effective on an Epic battlefield but perfect to send off to
> capture the power station or something like that.
>
>
>
> One question I have to ask - the Flying Skulls. What are they? Can we kill
> Orks with them?
>
> (Laughs) I could not possibly comment.
>
>
>
> Fair enough! The most popular question I received by far was about the
> Squats. Where are they, what are they doing?
>
> There is a set of notes from me going into the Journal about how players
> with Squat armies can integrate them into their games. Basically, from our
> point of view, we will explain what has happened to the Squat homeworlds
and
> how you can use existing army lists as stand-in army lists that allow you
to
> field Squat models and it brings the situation up to date. There is some
> possibility of revisiting the idea of Dwarves in 40k at some point in the
> future but effectively, with that article as far as we are concerned,
Squats
> are dealt with, we won't do a proper army list for them, there will be the
> stand-in army lists that people can use. We have some nice ideas of what
we
> can do with Dwarves in 40k at some time in the future, but we want a bit
of
> separation from the Squat background, we don't like the name, we don't
like
> the actual army list ourselves, none of the Games Developments team are
> inspired by it, and so they are going on the back burner and maybe we'll
> return to it completely fresh. The closest parallel would be the way we
left
> Slann out of Warhammer, then returned as the Lizardmen. The original idea
> was not very strong, we did not like it very much, so we left it to one
> side, rested them, then came back with a revitalised system.
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Received on Wed Aug 01 2001 - 09:41:18 UTC