--- In netepic_at_y..., "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_c...> wrote:
> 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
Hi Guys
Apologies for the long delay!
To answer your question - The Epic list has been a lot less vocal
than the netepic list about the new rules. I guess people on the
Epic list like the E40k, and they like the fact that they were
listened too with regard to the ATII issue (ATII and Epic were split
into two systems again), and so generally trust Jervis to make the
right sort of decisions (maybe with a little feedback and
prompting!).
I think the general feeling on added weapon differentiation is that
it is a good thing. Also the addition of interesting ideas such as
detachments being flanked has raised interest.
Several people have expressed a little concern that extra complexity
for weapons will slow the game down but I don't think Jervis's
proposals sound that bad so far...
The biggest problem people seem to have with a new edition is the
release schedule. I am not overly worried myself - the type of
schedule they are proposing seems to work fine for all their other
games, it certainly didn't seem to hinder the growth of warmaster for
instance. Provided they have cut down army lists in the back fo the
main book then people will be able to start playing with their old
armies straight away... and by releasing a new army every month
afterwards they maintain a stream of interest in the system with new
models and rules - newbies have time to examine the forces and the
game a little piece at a time, instead of being overwhelmed by the
whole thing.
Markco
Received on Fri Mar 15 2002 - 10:50:29 UTC