Hi Peter. :) Thanks a bunch for the reply! This sounds EXACTLY like
what I was looking for. I am eager to give them a try. I can't wait
to see whatever new stuff you have for them. I was getting ready to
print out the army lists but will hold off if a revision is imminent.
I broke down and printed off the rules for 2.0 though. :) My email is
JLEAHY5555 at aol.com
Thanks,
John
--- In netepic_at_y..., "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_c...> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> John, thanks for your queries. Although the list is mainly for net
epic
> some time ago Kenneth Peters and myself decided to make an epic
based
> games with all new mechanics to cover issues we thought no GW game
ever
> could supply. We called it Heresy, since after all most of us are
> heretics at heart. The following is what Heresy tries to accomplish:
>
> 1. Morale means something. Most GW games either ignore or severely
> reduce the effects of morale on the battlefield. Morale is a key
> mechanic in Heresy. Because of it, SM will behave more like their
> stories suggest since their morale permits them to do more than say
IG.
>
> 2. Games need to accommodate large amounts of troops and play
relatively
> fast. This part we are finally reaching, since many newer
modifications
> reduce die rolls and accommodate larger forces.
>
> 3. Same basic rules for all. There are NO SPECIAL RULES in Heresy.
The
> same rules apply to an infantry stand as well as a titan. Does it
mean
> the rules and thus the army lists are generic? No. We used a system
of
> skills to make units unique, but the skills are standardized. Thus a
> marine stand with "stubborn" acts different for a stand like IG that
> does not have this. The standard rules and stats make it easy to
> remember.
>
> 4. Conserve flavor. This killed epic 40k, so Heresy, while seeking
to
> streamline, makes sure that each army has its own organization and
> character with a combination of skills and unit availability.
>
> All units new and old are represented in Heresy. In fact there is a
> formula I made to easily add more units as they appear.
>
> Please note the rules are in a transition phase to version 2.1.
> Especially the army lists which I need to change to reflect version
2
> better.
>
> If you are interested in trying out the rules let me know so as to
get
> you the updated army lists to try it out. The rules have evolved
this
> far through input of players like you. So in essence you can mold
it to
> be what you want, all you need is to let me know what works and what
> doesn't.
>
> In any event I thank you for giving me extra impetus to finish the
> project.
>
> Peter
Received on Fri Nov 15 2002 - 01:30:18 UTC