--- In netepic_at_y..., "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_c...> wrote:
> 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.....
* I've exchanged emails with Jervis in the past regarding Adeptus
Titanicus (the first one). I do believe that he is most proud of
Epic40K - the fact that it failed in the marketplace really doesn't
enter into the equation. If it was about marketshare and money then
NetEpic must really suck ass right? ;)
> 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.
* I think you have to look at it from his point of view - he probably
gets a LOT of "Ep1K 40k SUXX0R3Z MY NUTZ0r3Z!!!" comments rather then
well-reasoned emails on what people think they should change.
> 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.
* Absolutely true. I think this should be pointed out by everyone. As
a chaos player it sucks ass not to have new troops released
(especially as some models only were made in E40K -or never released
at all!).
> 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".
* Unfortunantely that's probably true.
> 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.
* Actually I like the changes he is proposing. Perhaps most
importantly I couldn't really give a rats ass about the system - I
want Epic as a game line to survive. If that means it has to use
substandard rules (and lets face it - neither Adeptus Titanicus or
Space Marine were perfect by ANY stretch of the imagination) then so
be it. We have NetEpic but that doesn't do a lot of good when the
minis vanish.
> 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.
* I have no idea other then he wants to keep the dice rolling down a
bit.
> Interesting. Funny to see many Heresy Concepts being used.
Hoepfully they will be impleted well.
* Jervis is aware of Heresy at least in a general way but I doubt he
has looked at it.
> 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.
* I plan on making Heresy-style comments on the game.
> 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.
* I agree. I can't think of a simpler way of handling it either. I
sort of dislike the 180 degree arc of "view" though.
> 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.
* I would probably recommend a Command Point system from 2-12 (you
use 2 dice if you want to help keep track) that is the number of
units you can activate without penalty - the more command units the
more CP.
Received on Sat Feb 09 2002 - 22:20:04 UTC