Re: [Epic] old Andy C or Jervis message about E40K
OK, here it is:
> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:55:16 +0100
> Subject: [Epic] P: Gee, You Guys! (Long)
> Considering some of the rather, erm, less well-considered comments about
> what we might or might not going to be doing with Epic that I've seen on
> this list (yes, that means _you_ Julian!), I thought I'd better fire off
> this message to set you minds at rest, at least a little bit.
> OK, first off, all of your old miniatures will be compatible with the new
> system. We're going to be remaking quite a few of the models, but this is
> in order to improve the level of detailing on the models, not change their
> scale or anything like that. We're doing this because we constantly try to
> improve the quality of the models we make; nothing can stand still, I'm
> afraid, no matter how much some may want it to. The bottom line is that you
> don't have to cast your old models 'into the warp', or anything like it.
> You'll just get great new models to add to those you've already collected.
> The new army lists allow you to build detachments on a unit by unit basis,
> thus allowing you to field formations that *can* be organised along the
> same lines as a 40K army. Note the word can, please! If you want to stick
> to the detachment types used in the current edition of Epic, then you can
> do so if you want, it's up to you. The primary reason for changing the way
> the lists works is to strengthen the link between Epic and 40K in terms of
> the background, i.e. the 'compatibility' we're looking for between the two
> games is one of background _not_ rules mechanics.
> Assault combat is more important in the new edition of Epic *not* because
> it causes greater casualties than is the case in the current edition of the
> game (if anything assaults are less bloody with the new rules), but because
> the side that loses is forced to retreat and give up ground. Actually, it
> was watching news footage of the Chechen (sp?) crisis that drove home this
> point to Andy and myself; there was a siege of a Chechen village, and the
> Russians had _pounded_ the place for days with artillery, aircraft and
> long-range fire, but when it came right down to it, they had to assault the
> place in order to capture it. The same thing happened in the Gulf, in the
> end the army had to go into Kuwait and kick the Iraqi's out! This is one of
> the things we've tried to capture in the new Epic rules, that it you want
> to capture a piece of real estate you need to go in there and take it,
> which in games terms means launching an assault. While on the subject of
> assaults, we assume they include all forms of close combat, i.e.
> short-range fire-fights and shoot-outs as well as hand to hand combat.
> Finally, what you will categorically *not* try and do is write a set of
> rules that attempts to plug every loop-hole and cover every conceivable
> eventuality that may occur on the tabletop. Why not? Because we know that
> it can't be done; you simply can't cover every possible thing that will
> arise in a tabletop game. Instead of attempting to achieve what we think is
> the impossible, we try to write rules that are easy to understand, and
> where the *intent* behind the rule is as clear as it possibly can be. I'm
> not saying we're perfect at this and that we don't make mistakes, but I do
> know we're better at it than anybody else. Our task in future rule books is
> to make it clear to players that if they understand the intent of a rule,
> then attempting to exploit it in a way they *know* it's not intended is
> going completely against the spirit of the game itself.
> And here we come to an extremely important point. One thing that has become
> increasingly clear to us is that if there is one serious failing in each of
> the current editions of our core games (Warhammer, Warhammer 40,000 and
> Epic), then its that we don't spend enough time explaining to people about
> the spirit and attitude they should bring to the tabletop when the play
> them. This has resulted in a lot of players looking at the stuff we do as
> being a game which they play 'just to win'. Future editions of our games
> will explore the myriad different possibilities of the hobby in greater
> depth, and will hopefully free players from the rather limited view that
> all you can do is line up to equal point armies and fight the same scenario
> over and over again. We'll try to get across the fact that there's really a
> lifetimes worth of possibilities waiting out there for players to explore
> and enjoy. What's more, once you get your head round the concept of what
> the hobby is *really* about, then silly niggly little rules questions
> suddenly become a lot less important.
> I know by now some of you will be saying something along the lines of "oh
> well, that's all very well and good, but in the real world it's not like
> that". We understand and appreciate this point of view, and we know that
> quite a lot of people, especially outside the UK, play our games 'just to
> win'. However, we're doing our best to change this attitude with articles
> like the J Files and Stillmania in WD, by publishing the Citadel Journal,
> and, as I've already said, we will make sure that any future editions of
> our games spend much more time explaining what the hobby is really about to
> new players.
> However we can't turn round players attitudes all on our own; we need
> experienced players like you to lead by example as well. That's right,
> _you_ need to get out there and help lead new players into the light. Show
> them what makes this hobby really special and unique. Set up campaigns, or
> design some interesting one-off scenarios for your group to play.
> Experiment with house rules, invent your own rules, and even use rules sets
> published by other companies if you want, we won't mind (well, OK, we'll
> mind a bit if you use other people's rules : )). Run painting classes. Go
> along to games conventions and run participation games. Set up tournaments
> if you can stand the aggravation (they're still the best way of introducing
> a whole bunch of players to new opponents). In other words don't just rely
> on us to do everything for you; *take* the stuff we provide and the new
> people we've got interested in the hobby, and then use these as a starting
> point to build the type of hobby _you_ want to be a part of.
> Hope that helps.
Received on Wed Dec 03 1997 - 18:54:22 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:10:05 UTC