i agree, peter !
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Ramos
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Regarding Epic40K- Armageddon Playtest
Hi!
<grin> Yes, I now Markco. there are quite a few of your "heretics" lurking about <chuckle>
I don't mind streamlining rules as long as they make several distinctions. For example I demand vehicle armor and infantry armor to be different. I want anti- personal weapons to NOT affect vehicles and such. That's the problem with e40k, there are no such distinctions. Infantry and vehicle firepower is just that and there are no armor distinctions. A stand with armor 5+ is the same as a vehicle with armor 5+. Of course Jervis propositions want to resolve this and that is good. Several of his other proposals also try to address things I demand in a scale at this game. If a unit only has weapons of one type (anti-tank, anti-personnel, etc) then I have no problem with one roll. Of course that's usually not the case.
Look at spearhead for WW2 for example, pretty elegant simple rules. But they do list and acknowledge the difference between vehicles and infantry as well as weapon systems. An anti-tank designation is not enough, because there IS a difference between a German 88 and a British 6 pounder. This is what I want in the new epic rules.
To be frank I don't think you "E40k'ers" have much to fear from "us". Jervis has stated its not a "from scratch" design so basically you get to keep the mechanics your used to. Its much more of an issue, even from his standpoint, to make rules that "netepic/SM/TL'ers" will play. For you he is preaching to the converted, he knows he has pleased you since that's the game you like. Pleasing "us" is another matter though. In the end, at least from what most list members comments seem to show, we should join in, not so much out of that we expect a product we'll like or play (although their is certainly optimism for that), but we don't want the game system to go under. We all play epic after all.
We may be Heretics, but we're nice heretics.
Markco, what's the word on the epic list about all this?
Thanks for you input!!
Peter
> Remember that not all 300 subscribers to list this list are players
> of net-epic! I suspect there are many like myself who just lurk here
> to keep an eye on all you damn heretics :) ... and pick up some cool
> rule or miniatures ideas now and again.
>
> I for one have no desire to return to the turgid shooting duels of
> editions before E40k (the One True Game). Why resolve firing of 3
> tanks at a time when you could resolve the fire of an entire company
> in the same time? Why have several dice rolls to resolve hitting and
> armour effects when it can all be rationalised into a single die
> roll? Why issue orders to platoons when you should be issuing them
> to whole companies? The name of the game is Epic not Squad Leader.
> Space Marine reminds me too much of those old moderns and ww2 rules
> where u had to roll to spot a target, then roll to hit, then roll to
> penetrate, then make individual morale tests for tiny little sections
> of your force... uh! no thanks...
>
> Also a number of 'realism' factors annoyed me about Space Marine...
> Why do you always have to kill something to affect morale, and why
> can troops move even under heavy fire?! I'm not sure if net-epic
> addresses these mind u. Also the play balance and character of
> armies in E40k (with a few exceptions) appeals to me a lot more in
> E40k than it did in space marine. Eg. Eldar really capture the feel
> of a swift deadly, but brittle rapier that needs to choose when and
> where it strikes with care... hit and fade. Beats the old eldar 'tie
> things up with aspects and bikes and shoot them from a distance' of
> the previous editon.
>
> The changes Jervis is proposing sound to me like they still leave
> good macro level mechanics and game play, but add more 'realism' if
> that is the right word for a science fantasy game... Weapons
> specialised against either infantry or armour (something that bugged
> me more in theory than practice about E40k), and the flanking rules
> which is not something that I had considered much. Also the unit
> activation system sounds interesting, if we could do away with order
> counters/dice I would be very happy.
>
> I do agree with comments made here about the sort of audience Epic
> appeals to. I and many other historical gamers cruised into Epic,
> especially when E40k was released, in spite of enormous difficulties
> because of the crappy release schedules and marketing... we do not
> play other GW games, though BFG and warmaster have their appeal...
>
> I also agree that the netepic list is a very pleasant bunch of
> people, as is the epic list... In fact I have remarked on other lists
> that if they want to see an example of netiquette with never a flame
> in sight they should join the epic list... totally seriously.
>
> Anyway looks like the soul of epic is up for grabs... the die is
> cast, hats are in the ring :) Maybe its time I and others told
> Jervis that we do actually like much of his E40k mechanics! Gotta
> stop u netepic guys sticking in rules giving gretchin stands 3 attack
> types including a 'pet squig attack' and the like ;)
>
> Markco
>
> P.S. I have shown netepic to a fair number of people over the last
> couple of years so I'm not all bad... :) Look foward to jousting
> with u guys anyway...
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Received on Mon Feb 11 2002 - 14:55:05 UTC