For those of you who do not have access to what Jarvis said about how E40k
will develope here it is, 'enjoy'.
Warren
----- Original Message -----
From: Jervis Johnson <JervisJ_at_...>
To: The Fanatic Mailing List <fanatic_at_...-workshop.com>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 5:16 PM
Subject: JANUARY FANATIC NEWSLETTER (late!)
> Once again I have to apologise for the lateness of the Fanatic newsletter.
A
> number of you have been in touch asking what's happened to it, and the
short
> answer is that I simply haven't had time to write it yet! This is
partially
> due to the 'post-Christmas rush', partly due to our having moved office,
and
> partly due to simply have too many thing to do right now!
>
> Unfortunately I still haven't had much time to write a 'proper'
newsletter,
> so instead I've cobbled together this stop-gap newsletter until I can get
a
> more formal one off to you all in a couple of weeks time. If you have any
> pressing questions about the release dates of our magazines or models
before
> then, then just mail us at fanatic_at_... and we'll be happy
> to answer any questions you my have.
>
> Right then, the rest of this newsletter is made up of an editorial I wrote
> for Epic Magazine 7 concerning the future of the Epic game system. It is
> rather long (aren't all the thing I write?!?), but even if you don't play
> Epic I think it will contain stuff you might find of interest. In
particular
> I'm keen to involve the players in the development process of the new game
> system, rather than spring it upon them as a 'fait accompli', and on this
> basis getting feedback and comments from players who don't play Epic at
the
> moment is almost as important as getting feedback from players that do.
>
> Here then is the article. I'll be back in a couple of weeks with another,
> rather wider ranging Fanatic newsletter, I promise, honest guv, have I
ever
> lied to you...
>
> EPIC EVOLUTION
> By Jervis Johnson
>
> We've been receiving quite a few emails in the Fanatic office recently
> saying things along the lines of 'Adeptus Titanicus II is all well and
good,
> but when are we going to see more stuff for Epic 40,000?' This is a good
> question, and one that I hope to answer in this article. In brief, though,
> the answer is that you're going to see more stuff for Epic starting this
> very issue, and over the coming year ATII will be taking a back seat while
> we concentrate on the Epic 40,000 game system.
>
> "Well, what kind of stuff will we see?" I hear you cry. "Will it be new
> scenarios, new units or what?" Good questions again, and yes, you will see
> both these things. However, what we'll also be presenting is something
> altogether more ambitious and exciting, something never before attempted
in
> a GW magazine. What we're going to be doing in Epic magazine over the
coming
> months is nothing less than giving you a chance to see and take part in
the
> development of the next edition of the Epic 40,000 game system. The rest
of
> this article explains why we are doing this, as well as giving you some
food
> for thought in the form of the initial design concepts dreamed up by the
new
> Editions Chief Developer (that's me, by the way!).
>
> WHY A NEW EDITION?
> I've said it before, but I'll say it again, Epic 40,000 is the game design
I
> am most proud to have worked on. I think it's an absolutely superb game;
its
> elegant mechanics create a tense and exciting game with plenty of
manoeuvre
> and action, and it rewards carefully thought out strategy & tactics better
> than any other GW game, with the possible exception of Warmaster. Above
all,
> it is a game designed to be played, and I think it is telling that most of
> the criticism the game has received has come from people who have never
> played more than a game or two.
>
> None the less, love Epic as I do, I have come to think that what is really
> needed to revitalise the game is a brand new edition of the rules. Above
> all, I've come to think that the game needs a healthy injection of
'gritty'
> new rules to help differentiate the units in the game and give Epic more
> flavour.
>
> Game Play vs. Flavour
> Considering how proud I was of Epic, you can imagine my disappointment
when
> the game was released and proved much less successful than I had hoped or
> imagined it would be. With hindsight it's possible to see that there were
a
> number of reasons for Epic's poor showing; the game and the miniatures
were
> poorly marketed, the release schedule was patchy, all support stopped in
WD
> soon after the games release, and so on. However, the most common
complaint
> raised by players that didn't like the game was that it was not detailed
or
> realistic enough (whatever realistic means in this context). Rather than
> appreciating the elegant game mechanics and superb game play, these
players
> felt the game was abstract and lifeless - it simply failed to fire their
> imagination and so they didn't want to play the game.
> We've talked about this complaint quite a lot in the Studio since Epic
came
> out. As a designer I am interested in making games that are fun to play.
For
> this reason I worry a lot about over-complex rules and turgid game play.
On
> the other hand many players clearly like detailed rules with lots of
chrome.
> Previous editions of Epic (Adeptus Titanicus '1' and Space Marine) had
tons
> of special rules and detail, but suffered from turgid and unimaginative
game
> play as a result, while Epic 40,000 is superbly playable but at the cost
of
> very abstracted game mechanics. What interests me now is to try to create
a
> modified version of Epic which will balance off these conflicting
interests
> and create a game that works well for both groups, and as a result will
make
> Epic gaming once again a vital part of the 40K hobby. Later on in this
> article I explain some of the methods I'm thinking about using to achieve
> this.
>
> However, my perception that Epic would benefit from slightly grittier and
> more detailed game mechanics is not a compelling enough reason on its own
> for doing a new edition of the game. So, before moving on to what I am
> actually planning to do, here are the other reasons that made me decide
that
> we really had to do a new edition...
>
> Battlefleet Gothic, Miniature Ranges and Big Rocks!
> Since Epic was released there has been another GW game that uses almost
> identical game mechanics, but proved far, far more successful. I am, of
> course, referring to Battlefleet Gothic (BFG for short). One of the most
> interesting things for me about BFG's success is that I've seen hardly any
> comments to the effect that it is too simple or abstract. Which begs the
> question, why is this when BFG uses the same 'engine' as Epic? Although
BFG
> is slightly more detailed than Epic, I think the real reason for this
> difference in the way the two games are perceived lies in the way that the
> army lists and background are presented.
>
> In Epic the 'Armies Book' provides very little information on the units
used
> in the game other than their name and stat line, and most units are not
> illustrated. In BFG, on the other hand, all of the units used in the game
> are pictured and fully described. There is also much more information in
BFG
> about the background to the game, which is set during one campaign that is
> described in meticulous detail. I think that this difference in approach
> makes BFG 'feel' much realer, while Epic tends to make it feel more
abstract
> and game-like. This point of view has been strengthened by numerous
> conversations I've had with players about Epic that goes along the lines
of:
>
> Player: "The reason I don't like Epic is that all units feel the same. I
> want my Leman Russ to feel like a Leman Russ, not just any old tank."
>
> Jervis: "But all the units are different. A Leman Russ has different rules
> to a Land Raider or a Predator or a Rhino."
>
> Player: "Yeah, I know that, but they don't feel different."
>
> Tellingly, I've never had this conversation about BFG Escort ships, even
> though they use almost exactly the same game mechanics as vehicles in
Epic.
> All of which leads me to conclude that one of the big failings for Epic
was
> in terms of its presentation, and that we need to do a new edition of Epic
> in order to put this right. My current thinking is to take a leaf from the
> BFG book (I know, bad pun) and focus on one campaign in great detail. The
> campaign I've decided to concentrate on is the Armageddon campaign, partly
> because it's an important part of the 40K background at the moment and so
> lots of potential new Epic players will have heard about it, but mainly
> because 'Epic 40,000 - Armageddon' is just about the sexiest title for a
> game ever!
>
> By now some of you will be saying "Armageddon, hmmm, isn't that just
between
> the Imperium and the Orks? What about other armies?" Now I won't beat
about
> the bush on this - initially we will concentrate all of our attention on
> Imperial and Ork armies, though we will publish 'Get you by' army lists
for
> players that already have other armies. This decision will have a big
impact
> on the model range that we will release to go along with the new edition
of
> the rules. Instead of simply putting all of the old models fully back into
> production, we will only make the models for the Imperial and Ork armies
> available, possibly supplemented by a small 'Chaos Space Marine Raiders'
> range and an equally small 'Eldar Pirates' range.
>
> Doing this will give a tidy, focused range that we can build up over time
to
> cover all of the other races in the 40K galaxy, just as we have done with
> BFG. More importantly, including all of the races and models from the last
> edition would add at least an extra year to the production time for the
new
> edition, and frankly I'm just not willing to wait an extra year before my
> favourite game is available again! None of which is going to save me from
> the howls or protest from players whose armies aren't covered in Epic
40,000
> Armageddon, but that's life as a game designer I suppose!
>
> And that leads in a round about way to my final reason for wanting to do a
> new edition of Epic. Lets make no bones about it, Epic is currently the
> least successful game in the specialist games range, and in order to
revive
> its fortunes I need to do something that is going to make players sit up
and
> pay attention, and I'm going to have to do it soon while there is still a
> bit of life left in the game. I tend to look at new releases as rocks that
> the designers lob into the 'hobby pool'. Simply keeping Epic around in its
> current form is in effect throwing a pebble into the pool, the ripples
from
> which will only affect a small group of players. On the other hand
bringing
> out 'Epic 40,000 - Armageddon' will be the equivalent of throwing a
boulder
> in the pool, and hopefully the waves it creates will affect a lot more
> people, and get them playing Epic scale games.
>
> DESIGN GOALS & PRINCIPLES
> Hopefully by now you are as convinced as I am that bringing out a new
> edition of Epic makes a lot of sense. This begs the question, "What
changes
> will be made in the new edition?" As I said right at the beginning of this
> long-winded diatribe, I love Epic 40,000 and I think it's a superb game.
> Because of this, although the changes I have planned for the game will
> affect the way it plays and the way it is presented, Epic's fundamental
game
> mechanics will remain the same. In other words, I have no real desire to
> start again from scratch, or return to the rules found in the Space Marine
> edition of Epic. Instead, what I want to do is add a big handful of 'grit'
> to the game mechanics in the form of more detailed and less abstract rules
> for vehicles and infantry. I'm also keen to address some aspects of modern
> warfare that were not covered in the original game rules, such as the
> importance of outflanking the enemy, the difficulties of co-ordinating
> attacks by different formations, and so on. Last, but not least, I want to
> include much more background information about the units in the game and
the
> Armageddon campaign itself.
>
> I'll outline some of the changes I'd like to make next, but before I do so
I
> should explain that what follows is very much a broad discussion rather
than
> usable game rules. We'll be playtesting these ideas in games we'll be
> playing over the next few weeks, and hopefully this process will allow me
to
> include a 'rules update' in the next issue of Epic magazine so you can
test
> the new rules for yourselves. Until then, however, you'll have to make do
> with simply knowing the direction the new rules will take rather than the
> detail of exactly how they will work.
>
> A Handful Of Grit...
> As noted above, one thing I feel I have to do with the next edition game
> rules is to make the rules for vehicles and infantry rather less abstract.
> The primary way I plan to do this is to list the weapon systems carried on
> each vehicle and give them their own stat lines. This is similar to the
way
> that Escort ships are dealt with in BFG, so I know that it won't slow the
> game down too much. I'll take the Leman Russ as an example of what I plan
to
> do.
>
> Under the current rules the Leman Russ has the following stat line:
>
> Speed Range FP AS Armour
> Leman Russ 25cm 45cm 3 1 6+
>
> What I propose is that this is changed to something like this:
>
> LEMAN RUSS
>
> Type Speed Armour Assault Firefight
> Armoured Vehicle 25cm 4+ 1 5
>
> Weapon Range Firepower
> Battle Cannon 45cm 3FP/AT(5+)
> Lascannon 30cm AT(6+)
> Sponsons 20cm 2FP
>
>
> As you can see, the vehicle has gained a separate Firefight value, which
is
> used in firefights (doh!) or when the vehicle lends support in an assault.
> More noticeably, the Leman Russ now has firepower values for each gun
system
> it carries. Some of these also list an 'AT' value. This is the equivalent
of
> an anti-tank shot in the current rules, but the To Hit number varies
> depending on the weapon. The Leman Russ's Battle Cannon, for example, can
> either fire with 3 Firepower, or take a single anti-tank shot that hits on
a
> 5+. One interesting side effect of splitting weapons up like this is that
> the Leman Russ's Firepower now degrades with range, as some weapons have
> longer ranges than others.
>
> Less obvious are the changes to the Leman Russ's armour values and the
> addition of a 'Type' to the stat line. These two things are inter-linked,
> and stem from I wanted to split all units into three broad types:
infantry,
> light vehicles and armoured vehicles. Infantry are only affected by
> firepower, armoured vehicles are only affected by AT shots, while light
> vehicles are affected by either (they get the worst of both worlds!). The
> Leman Russ is an armoured vehicle, so it can only be affected by AT shots
> (though Firepower will still allow you to place Blast markers). So, if the
> Leman Russ shot at another Leman Russ, only its Battle Cannon and
Lascannon
> would have any affect.
>
> So far, so good, but surely an AT shot should have more chance of taking
out
> a Rhino than a Leman Russ, shouldn't it? Quite right it should, so
armoured
> vehicles now receive an amour saving throw, which they use instead of
their
> old Armour value. The Leman Russ is heavily armoured, so gets a save of 4+
> vs. any successful AT shots, while a Rhino will get a lower save because
it
> has thinner armour. Note that the save replaces the old Armour value, as
> armoured vehicles are not affected by Firepower so they no longer require
> the Armour value used in Epic.
>
> I've been tinkering with this method of dealing with vehicles for a few
> weeks now, and I must say that I rather like the effect it has on the
game.
> The vehicles 'feel' much realer, and although you have to roll separately
> for attacks that use Firepower (which affects only infantry and light
> vehicles in the target detachment) and attacks that use AT shots (which
only
> affects armoured vehicles), this has a negligible effect on playing time.
It
> also makes it much easier to differentiate between different types of
> vehicles. At the end of this article you'll find a mock-up of the way I'm
> thinking of presenting the rules and background for the Leman Russ
> Demolisher in the new edition rulebook, and if you check out the stats for
> the vehicle you'll find they are very different from the ordinary Leman
Russ
> stats above.
>
> I don't plan to go into the same level of detail for infantry. Apart from
> anything else if I did I'd have to start differentiating between all of
the
> possible squad level upgrades that infantry can carry in 40K, and I really
> don't think that would be worth the effort. So infantry will stick with
> having a single weapon stat line as they did in the past, and this will
> represent a sort of 'average' effect of all of the different types of
weapon
> they could possibly carry. Here's an example for a Space Marine Tactical
> squad.
>
> SPACE MARINE TACTICAL
>
> Type/Hits Speed Armour Assault
> Firefight
> Infantry 1 15cm 6+ 4 3
>
> Weapon Range Firepower
> Small Arms 30cm .5FP/AT(7+)
>
>
> Note that the squad only receives half a point of Firepower, and receives
an
> AT shot that requires a 7+ to hit (for non-Warhammer players that is a 6
> followed by a 4+). Astute readers will have realised that this means that
> Space Marine long range Firepower has been drastically reduced compared to
> Epic (halved, in fact), while the Leman Russ's Firepower has gone up at
> shorter ranges. This is not a whimsical change, but is based on some
serious
> number crunching comparing the effectiveness of different type of weapons
on
> different types of target under the 40K rules. What this number crunching
> showed was that vehicles were under-gunned and under-armoured in Epic
> compared to 40K, and this is something I'd like the new rules to reflect
in
> the new stats.
>
> The other thing I should point out here is that the Firepower of an
infantry
> unit only takes into account the special and heavy weapons carried by the
> units. The effect of short-ranged weapons like bolters or lasguns are
> included in the units Assault and Firefight values instead. One of the
basic
> design premises of Epic is that the Shooting phase represents long range
> harassing fire, while an assault represents an all-out attack made with
'all
> guns blazing'. Because of this, the casualty rate for an Epic Shooting
phase
> is based on what you'd expect from a single round of shooting in 40K,
while
> the casualties suffered in an assault will be close to those suffered in a
> complete 40K game. Or to put it another way, if you imagine the Movement
> and Shooting phases in Epic being the bits that happened just before a
game
> of 40K begins, then you won't go too far wrong!
>
> But I digress. The important thing here is that these changes greatly
> increase the amount of detail (or rules chrome) for each unit, while at
the
> same time sticking broadly within the basic Epic 40,000 game system. I'm
> really pleased with the way the changes work, but I'd value feedback to
know
> what you think about the game heading in this direction.
>
> A Sprinkling Of New Rules
> When I started designing Epic back in 1995-6 I wanted it to reflect what I
> considered to be some important aspects of modern combined arms warfare.
> Like almost all GW's design team, I'm an avid reader of military history,
> and what I wanted Epic to do was reflect some of the things I'd read about
> but which weren't really covered in the previous edition of the game. In
> particular, I wanted Epic to show the suppressive effect of fire, which
> basically means that shooting at people is just as much about getting them
> to put their heads down as it is about killing them. This is where the
idea
> for the Blast markers came from. I also wanted the game to force the
players
> to make quick decisions and constantly have to update their plans. This is
> the reason for the high movement rates in the game and the dramatic
effects
> of assaults and close combat, which often means that a player will find
> himself having to change and modify his battleplan every turn to reflect
the
> changing nature of the situation of the battlefield.
>
> Anyway, since Epic was published I've carried on reading my military
history
> books and thinking about how best to represent the things I've read about
in
> the wargames I play. Over that time there are two things that I've come to
> think aren't reflected at all well in Epic. These are the importance of
the
> flank attack, and the ability of better-trained troops to seize the
> initiative and dictate the flow of a battle.
>
> Outflanking An Opponent
> Outflanking an opponent, or to use modern parlance, achieving a position
> where you can enfilade an opponent, is a tactic as old as the hills but
> still vitally important to this day, and which (I am sure) will still be
> important well into the future. Because of this good commanders will
strive
> to outflank an opposing force if they can when attacking, and to protect
> their own flanks from enemy attack when on the defence. The more I've read
> about it, the more I've come to feel that this is really something that
Epic
> commanders need to be worrying about as well.
>
> The problem is defining when an Epic detachment has been outflanked,
> considering that the detachment can be set up with pretty much any facing.
> For quite a while I couldn't figure a way round this, at least not without
> adding in armour facings and fire arcs for weapons, and that was something
I
> simply wasn't willing to do (waaay too complicated and boring). Still, the
> problem remained in the back of my mind until I read some material
> describing the 'axis of attack' of a formation in a battle. What the axis
of
> attack refers to is the direction a unit will attack, or the direction it
is
> expecting an attack to come from when on the defensive. "Hmmmm!" I
thought,
> "If I say that a detachment's HQ defines the formation's axis of attack,
> then I'll be able to write rules for outflanking it." The idea is rather
> simple (a good thing if you ask me!), and boils down to the following: In
> order for a detachment to shoot or assault, then at least half the units
> from the enemy detachment(s) it will engage must be in the front arc
(front
> 180�) of the detachment HQ. More importantly, enemy detachments that lie
> completely outside the HQ's front arc achieve enfilade and cause double
the
> normal number of blast markers. Armoured vehicles lose their saving throw
> against AT shots from detachments that have enfiladed them.
>
> <There's a diagram in the article, but unfortunately I can't include it
> here!>
>
> The tactical implications of this fairly simple rules change are immense.
> For a start it encourages you to keep HQ's sensibly at the back of a
> detachment. It also means you really need to try and cover the flanks of
an
> attacking formation, because if it goes in 'straight up the middle' it
will
> probably get outflanked. Thirdly, it gives a big payback for the player
that
> manages to outflank an enemy force. I for one can't wait to try it out
> properly in some games!
>
> Seizing The Initiative
> The other thing I'd like to see reflected in Epic is the ability of
> well-trained troops to seize and (more importantly) hold on to the
> initiative during a battle. Epic already covers this to some extent with
the
> initiative rules, but I would like to give it rather more prominence. As
it
> happens, Pete Haines of the 40K development team (and a big fan of Epic)
has
> been thinking along similar lines, the more so after playing quite a lot
of
> Warmaster recently, and he forwarded me some rules he's been working on
for
> incorporating ideas from Warmaster into Epic. On the basis that artists
> steal (while amateurs only copy) I've nicked the ideas I liked from Pete's
> proposal and added them to some ideas of my own to come up with some
> modifications to the rules for initiative, the sequence of play and
special
> orders. Unfortunately, there isn't space to write the rules in full, but
I
> can give an outline of how they work.
>
> Basically, what I propose is to combine the Movement and Shooting phases
> into a single 'Action' phase. In the Action phase the initiative can pass
> from side to side. The player with the highest strategy rating goes first
by
> picking a detachment and carrying out an action with it
> (move/assault/march/overwatch). Having carried out an action the player
has
> a choice. He can either relinquish the initiative or try to retain it. To
> retain the initiative the player must nominate a new detachment and then
> make an Initiative test for it by rolling a D6 (see the box below for some
> example Initiative values). If the test is passed then the initiative is
> retained and the player may carry out an action with the nominated
> formation. If the test fails (or the player voluntarily gives up the
> initiative) then the initiative passes to the other player, who must then
> activate a detachment. Once all formations have taken an action the phase
> ends.
>
> Note that when you get the initiative you must activate a detachment, you
> can't pass immediately. If a player has no detachments left to activate
the
> opposing player keeps the initiative for the rest of the phase, and must
> keep on activating units until all have had an action. Also note that
> failing an Initiative test doesn't stop a formation from getting an action
> later in the same turn, it just delays things and gives the opponent a
> chance to interfere. Finally, note that a detachment may only be activated
> once per Action phase.
>
> So, once you have the initiative you may pick a unit and take an action
with
> it. As already noted, the Shooting and Movement phases have been combined
> into one phase, which means that an action allows a unit to move and
shoot.
> See the box below for descriptions of the actions a detachment can carry
> out.
> The other important thing to note about actions is that detachments which
> choose assault orders make any charge moves in the Action phase, not in
the
> Assault phase. Detachments that have been assaulted can take an action,
but
> units from the detachment that have been engaged (i.e., are in base
contact
> with the enemy) won't be allowed to move. This means that a detachment
that
> has been assaulted will need to pick assault orders itself if it wants to
> move units up to join in the fight. In the Assault phase you simply
resolve
> all assaults and firefights resulting from the actions carried out in the
> Action phase. The player with the higher strategy rating picks one
assault,
> then resolves it. Then the other player picks an assault, and so on. Once
> all assaults have been resolved, move onto firefights. The player with the
> higher strategy rating picks one firefight, then resolves it. Then the
other
> player picks an assault, and so on.
>
> Now, I have to admit that the new initiative system is a more rules heavy
> and fundamental change than the outflanking rule, but I'm looking forward
to
> trying it out equally as much. What I find most intriguing about it is the
> decisions it will force on players as to which units to activate next, and
> what to get them to do. Do I pull back with this detachment before it gets
> tied up by an assault? Or should I fire on that detachment while it's
still
> in range, etc, etc, etc. It should provide players with a real challenge -
I
> just hope it doesn't slow the game down too much as a result.
>
> Epic 40,000 Armageddon Actions
>
> Space Marines Initiative = 2+
> Imperial Guard Initiative = 3+
> Ork Initiative = 4+ unless formation will assault, in which case
> automatically keeps the initiative.
>
> Detachments with Blast markers get a -1 modifier, or a -2 modifier if it
has
> more Blast markers than units.
>
> Move: Make a normal move and then shoot.
> Assault: Make a double move and then shoot at half effect. Formations may
> enter close combat (move into base contact) without being snap-fired upon.
> Note that units in close combat may shoot and be shot at and that the unit
> no longer has to charge the enemy - assault moves can be used
'defensively'.
>
> March: Make a triple move, but no shooting and enemy attacks use the march
> column of the Firepower table.
> Overwatch: Move up to 5cm and shoot, re-rolling misses.
> Retreat: This is the only action that may be chosen by broken detachments.
> Move 20cm, ending more than 15cm from enemy. May not shoot.
>
> CONCLUSION
> Sadly I'm running out of space and time to tell you more about my plans
for
> the next edition of Epic, so I'll have to save that up for next issue and
> wrap this article up here. However, in order to protect my fellow
designers
> from criticism, I should probably say before I go that when I told Rick
> Priestley and Andy Chambers that I was going to write this article for
Epic
> magazine, both thought I was quite mad to tell people about my plans for a
> new edition at such an early date. They have a point - writing another
> article about proposed rules changes to Epic so soon after ATII is, to an
> extent, asking for trouble and could cause all kinds of confusion. On the
> other hand my instinct is to keep all of the dedicated Epic players that
> read this magazine as much 'in the loop' as possible about the future of
> their favourite game, and this includes letting you know if I'm thinking
> about changing it. Apart from anything else I really do value your
opinions,
> and would like to know if you think these changes take Epic in the right
> direction or not.
>
> And that's all for this month. Next issue I hope to be able to publish a
set
> of modifications to the
> Epic 40,000 rules that will allow you to try the changes you'll have read
> about here in your own games. I'll also be reporting on how our early test
> games have been going. Until then, please send your comments, suggestions
> and feedback to me at fanatic_at_... or at Fanatic Games,
> Games Workshop, Willow Road, Nottingham, NG7 2WS, UK.
>
> And remember, keep rolling 6s!
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jervis Johnson
> Head Fanatic
>
> Visit the Fanatic website at http://www.games-workshop.com/fanatic/
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to fanatic as: warren.c_at_...
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-fanatic-126364W_at_...-workshop.com
>
Received on Fri Feb 08 2002 - 21:39:32 UTC