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

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 20:14:45 -0400

Hi!

> --- 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? ;)

Touche.... Glad to see you Ken. By the way I sent you an e-mail directly let me know what you can do in regards to what I asked in it. Thanks!
>
>
> > 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.

<grin> True. But at least I never sent him one <grin>
>
>
> > 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!).
>
I just don't understand this one. I mean they know support and release was an issie, yet they ignore that information.
>
> > 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.

All doomsaying aside. I hope it doesn't sink. Not that I think I'll play it, but, after all, everyone needs minis, regardless of what you play.
>
>
> > 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.

Touche again. Its in no ones interest if this one fails. Problem is WILL it re-new interest. I really dont know.
>
>
> > 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.

That would be good. keep me posted on what the opinions are.
>
> > 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.

Its not perfect, but simple and quite frankly it seems to give it a good command and control option without fiddly rules.

> > 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.

Thats a pretty good idea, sort of a variant of what we did in Heresy. Its not an alien conept to 40k, they have a leadership stat a command point one should be too much of a leep.

Peter
Received on Sun Feb 10 2002 - 00:14:45 UTC