Good comments Peter. I believe that the group has to contribute to the next
phase of E40K, if not the project may die and I for one would not want that
as I would love GW to produce some more miniatures for the races out there
and introduce new races. To do this there needs to be growth in the
interest of the game and it's player base. We can help to develop the game
that |I believe the players want, but as Kenneth ahs stated NO GW bashing as
they will turn a deaf ear to us on everything.
Let us get together and help GW create a game which they will be wiling to
support with future figure launches, then we can expand our gaming base and
diversity in the Net Epic field.
That's my thought any way..
Warren
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Fw: JANUARY FANATIC NEWSLETTER (late!)
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 Sat Feb 09 2002 - 23:50:13 UTC