Re: [NetEpic ML] Fw: JANUARY FANATIC NEWSLETTER (late!)

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 15:35:27 -0400

Hi!

Comments regarding Jervis post below.


> > 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.

How do you get comments from players "who don't play epic at the moment"? Are they refering to epic players like us who don't play epic 40k or epic 40k players who for whatever reason don't play the game anymore? It's hard to get feedback from players who don't play epic 40k, because its very likely they are no longer are looking into information sources that would alert them that such a project is taking place. Lets face it, if Warren did not post this would we EVER had found out?

> > 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
> >
> > 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.

The usualy party (and despicable) line. Saying that "it's the most proud design I have worked on" does not disguise its utter failure in the marketplace. If he doesn't want to admit he screwed up thats fine, but he shouldn't repeat this silly little line, because simply put, a untruth, no matter how much repeated. does not make it truth. Saying its a supeb game ad-nasuem doesn't make it one and if it was so superb why is he trying to make a new edition? Flawed logic.....

The second is also typical. To infer that those who don't like the game or critize it are people that "never played more than a game or two" is not only false, but pretty insulting too. I myself played 12 test games and did not like the game at the end of that run. I'd like to dispell the silly notion that you need to play a game into the ground in order to find out whether you think its good. Different people learn in different ways. Some are more visual, some more abstract. None is "better" than the other. Some like to play a couple of games to get a "feel" for it. Some like me need only to read the rules a couple of times to get the "feel". The bottomline its a game and whether you like it or not is based on a host of subjective paramemeter. Its the hieght of arrogance to assume that one persons parameters are the ONLY ones that matter.
> >
> > 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.

Really!? <slaps head> I cold have told you that 24hrs after I bought epic 40k <sarcasm>.

> > 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).

Unsuccessful? Sheesh, what an understatement. Under epic 40k, epic for the FIRST time went out of print. If that wasn't telling him he made a terrible mistake then I dont know what would.

 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.

It seems FINALLY Mr. Jervis realizes what some of the problem is. Yes, it doesn't have character, yes, it doesn't have flavor and yes it failed to spark the imagination of the majority of epic gamers. Of course, this is all preceeded by the the statement that gamers didn't appreciate how elegant the system was. Here's a thought maybe it wasn't that elegant, maybe it's not as brillinat as he thought. Note it tales him nearly 5 years after the games release to realize things that most people on this list figured out by the first summer of the games release (some 3-6 months after release).

I particularly laugh at the comment on "turgid and unimaginative" play of 2nd edition epic. Yeah, right, like you added those things to epic 40k, thats how come it did so good <sarcasm>.

> >
> > 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!

I think this is probably the most insightful stuff he has to say. It goes to show what I have said all along that mechanics should be matched with the system portrayed. The little BFG I played was quite fun and the mechanics seemed quite at home. But it doesn't in epic. What is fun and neccessary to abstract in a starship game may not sit well in a grand scale combat game. He realizes this, perhaps he will finally "get it".

> > 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!

Bad, Bad, Bad. One major reason epic 40k failed was due to a horrible release schedule where armies like chaos got shafted. If they do this again I dont see why the end effect will change. If I am a chaos or eldar player why would I buy a game that doesn't support fully my armies and I have NO guarantee it will survive release? Given GW track record I dont blame anyone who doesn't look twice at this title with this type of release schedule.
> >
> > 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.

AHHHH....the truth comes out...liberating isn't it. Say it again...again.... the truth shall set you free. After all the arrogance and "how cool my system is" talk before, the REAL reason for redoing epic comes out. Let's face it beyond the torch a precious such as this list carry, what else is out there? Fanatic you say? We'll they have a whole host of other PROFITABLE games by his own admissison. Even compared to other fanatic games this one gets pretty weak support. Well gentlemen you are now witnessing the last ditch effort for epic. Its finally here. If this one goes in the toilet, well...don't expect much. Not that you were getting much anyway. If you think it's hard to get what you want now imagine the scarcity if this new one "hits the fan".

> > 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.

Strike two! The only thing to save epic IMO is precisely to start from scratch and get player input. Its the only way to get a good system at this point. If you build on a base that was a proven failure, the chances that a "grittier" system will deliver get slim.

> > 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

Hmm.. I got another idea, why don't change FP to attack dice and AT to save modifer....oh wait! thats 2nd edition epic..... please, give me a break. If your going to do that why not just go back to SM?TL?

Can you say "reinventing the wheel"? A wheel is a wheel is a wheel. You can paint it, but its still a wheel.

> > 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.

Hehe, those of you that have read Heresy may already be laughing. Those who haven't give it a read through you'll find it interesting.

This mechanic is good, very good in fact. Light vehicles, armor and infantry should be different from each other and interact differently.

> >
> > 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.

Very sound, should have been present in the game at its original release.

> > 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.

Interesting. Funny to see many Heresy Concepts being used. Hoepfully they will be impleted well.

> > 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.

Very insightful thoughts. These were also things very present in our minds when we made Heresy. I am not sure if they can be implemented on top of the e40k system, but we'll see.

> > 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!

Pretty darn slick! Perhaps one of the ideas I like the most and it brings some command control factor to the battlefield. I think this one will fit well in the epic 40k system as it stands.

> > 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.

This is also a good idea, but he could put in some game controls, since armies with real good training, with some average luck can trounce armies with low training. I'd introduce a penalty for beyond a certain number of units activate that could also be army dependent. For example a higher trained army like space marine can activate extra units at no penalty until reaching the 3rd or 4th unit after which checks are made at -1 and the penalty gets larger after a higher amount activated. Less trained armies like orks may have problems activating more units beyond one or two. The systme would autoregulate itself better this way.

> >
> > 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.

Hehe, pure Heresy. I think moving to a action based instead of purely phase based game is a real good idea. It eliminates a lot of the headaches the phase based system has and stuff like overwatch works a lot better too. I think the last three ideas are very good and will enchance the game a lot, although I have my reservations if they will fit with the core e40k mechanic. Its a shame they dont start from scratch to better do justice to these fine ideas.

Of course remember most of them are in Heresy anyway <wink, wink>


Now these are some questions for a our list members:

1. Should this group get involved with this project?
2. How should we forward any feedback? As a group? Individually?

Of course this will all depend how real is the "contribution from players is". For now its watch and wait, but I'd apprecaite views on all this.

Peter
Received on Sat Feb 09 2002 - 19:35:27 UTC