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

From: <jyrki.saari_at_...>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:46:50 +0200

[snip]
> 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?
>

Yeah. Not every one in the list is as crazy as I am so as to continuously buy the epic magazine.

[snip]
> 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.....
>

Yes and no. We are talking about GW here. _GW_. This means that while E40k is unfinished in many respects it _still_ is one of the better games GW has produced. Says a lot doesn't it?

> 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.

Exactly. I have been a real "rule moster" fanatic in the past and only recently seen the light on this subject. It is the _style_ one likes which matters. Some players like action movie styled games, others like simulation games and others like it somewhere in between. None is "better" than the others. If you have fun playing Risk style games then no ASL player has _any_ right whatsoever to mock you for your preferences and vice versa.


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

The joys of not using out house beta testing groups.

[snip]
> 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.
>
[snip]
> 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).
>

Surprise!

> 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>.
>

That's what I've been wondering. No matter what units you have in your detachment the game boils down to totalling firepower and rolling dice. I wonder how this is an example of "elegant" and "imaginative" play?

[snip]
> 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".
>

Hopefully. What he seems not to have understand in the first place is that BFG really has ONLY ONE kind of unit: starship. No matter what class a ship belongs to it still is a ship and (surprisingly) behaves like a ship. A land combat game has four kinds of units: infantry, unarmored vehicles, armored vehicles and flyers. These classes behave in totally different ways and bear little resemblance to each other. In E40k tanks behave just like faster and better armored infantry.

[snip]
> Bad, Bad, Bad. One major reason epic 40k failed was due to a
> horrible release schedule where armies like chaos got
> shafted.

And Squats got dropped out altogether.

> 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.

Yep. It seems they are actually admitting of being unable to support many armies appropriately and really not caring about what the players of chaos and eldar armies think. Someone should really give GW a lecture about customer service and why it is important.

> > >
[snip]
> 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".
>

Considering the above comments about reducing the army base even further and this we may be finally watching the death troes of official Epic system. If that happens we will be the only supporters of Epic and that is bad since we can't release any miniatures. Sigh.

[snip]
>
> 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.
>

Again the voice of reason. GW should really hire you as a consultant.

[snip]
> 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?
>

Because that would be admitting they made a mistake in the first place. The people in GW would make first-class politicians and that is certainly not a compliment.

[snip]
> 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.
>

Oh, I am not laughing but I am certainly gloating. <evil grin>

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

<sarcasm> Gee, I have never thought of that. After all, vehicles are just infantry with more speed and bigger guns, right? Why should they be treated with any difference at all? </sarcasm>

And it took mister "dakka dakka" Johnson ONLY 6 years to realize that. And he says he reads a lot of war history. If that is true, it must all be about battles before and during WWI.

[snip]
>
> Very sound, should have been present in the game at its
> original release.
>

Exactly. See my above comments about vehicles and infantry.

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

We can always hope.

[snip]
>
> 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.
>

Yeah, either Mr. JJ is finally waking up or he's got some really competent advisor.

[snip]
>
> 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.
>

Initially i didn't think much of this but after reading JJ's explanation of the "axis of attack" I must say I really begun to like this rule.

[snip]
>
> 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 just change the "fixed threshold" roll to a opposed one. Both players roll a d6 with the better armies getting some positive modifier. The higher roll wins. However, like you I'd also give a cumulative penalty to the active player's roll for every unit after the first he has activated as it would be a good way to prevent unrealistic situations and the non-active player would feel some control over the situation as well.

[snip]

> 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>
>

Yep. Being a heretic has its rewards :P

>
> Now these are some questions for a our list members:
>
> 1. Should this group get involved with this project?

Yes.

> 2. How should we forward any feedback? As a group? Individually?
>

One tactic could be to form a "group opinion" and then posting it independently to the feedback forum. Otherwise it would just be one reply among others.

> 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.
>

Let's keep our eyes open. If GW is _really_ starting to ask for playtest input I definetely think we should encourage them to contimue this trend by contributing.

> Peter
>
>
>
>


Jyrki Saari

-There is no such thing as free lunch because eating takes time and time is money.
Received on Mon Feb 18 2002 - 09:46:50 UTC