Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

GW Involvement in SG

 Post subject: GW Involvement in SG
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:09 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:45 pm
Posts: 455
Just out of curiosity, when did Jervis stop managing Epic A directly? I mean, I know his specialist team got broken up when they closed the little Fanatic workshop they had going on, but did he continue to contribute thereafter? I know they arent supposed to go online anymore. At least officially.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Marine Land Raiders vs Chaos Land Raiders
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:50 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4230
IIRC he had stopped contributing a good while before fanatic died

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Marine Land Raiders vs Chaos Land Raiders
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:54 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 8372
Location: Worcester, MA
Ya, Fanatic died in 07 I think but most of the dev team drifted away in 05.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2018-05-15 | Raven Guard 2018-04-23


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Marine Land Raiders vs Chaos Land Raiders
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:04 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5066
Location: Bristol
I wasn't involved but I gather there was a lot of community contribution and input, helping Jervis test and develop EpicA, as opposed to the closed development other GW games have.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Marine Land Raiders vs Chaos Land Raiders
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 7:40 am 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9197
Location: Singapore
Yes, it was never a question of 'thats it guys, I am out' from Jervis. The discussion here and on the SG boards was ongoing, and the participation from the GW guys just got less and less as (I guess) GW gave them other stuff to do. Technically, Jervis is still our point of contact at GW!

_________________
http://cybershadow.ninja - My Hobby Blog
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/blogs/cybershadow - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
http://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Marine Land Raiders vs Chaos Land Raiders
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 10:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:08 pm
Posts: 961
Location: Nice, south of France
My "most active" (rule and playing wise) period was definitely in the original playtest before the rulebook got out. The development was very interactive. I am proud to have won the argument to give thunderhawks the reinforced armour save :)

Jervis focused on the original book rules and list until release, then on the list that were to be included in swordwind, and then all funding was withdrawn from specialist games. You have no idea how long I spent salivating impatiently in front of the release schedule page, with everything progressively getting delayed, delayed, delayed... and cancelled.

The lists for most races evolved from a Jervis proposition originally (not Tau nor crons).

Thinking back on that time, I think E:A is still the best ruleset, even if the aerospace rules are weaker than the rest, and the WE ones quirky. The choices concerning list development, in hindsight, were pretty bad IMO. The original playtest period of E:A was the most exiting wargaming time ever for me. It feel strange to think that this system that felt so new is now the longest standing epic rule edition...

/old rant


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Marine Land Raiders vs Chaos Land Raiders
PostPosted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:41 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:42 pm
Posts: 3305
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
My one regret with Swordwind is that as a second EA book it would have been great if could have somehow covered Eldar, Chaos and Tyranids. That way all 6 armies from Epic 40K rulebook would have been covered with at least basic generic army lists which would have then made a good basis for subsequent variant lists.

I am sure that Siegemasters and Feral orks would have their supporters but if we had had official GW rules for Chaos and Nids it would definitely have helped the growth of game. I had friends locally who would nt touch the game unless their army was catered for.

It is nice though that the playtesting meant the 3 rulebook armies were incredibly balanced against each other and very few changes even now, 10 years on.

_________________
My TOEG- Blood Angels and Deathbolts
My Painting Blog- Evil Sunz, Goffs
My Epic trades list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Marine Land Raiders vs Chaos Land Raiders
PostPosted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:15 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:45 pm
Posts: 455
wargame_insomniac wrote:
My one regret with Swordwind is that as a second EA book it would have been great if could have somehow covered Eldar, Chaos and Tyranids. That way all 6 armies from Epic 40K rulebook would have been covered with at least basic generic army lists which would have then made a good basis for subsequent variant lists.

I am sure that Siegemasters and Feral orks would have their supporters but if we had had official GW rules for Chaos and Nids it would definitely have helped the growth of game. I had friends locally who would nt touch the game unless their army was catered for.

It is nice though that the playtesting meant the 3 rulebook armies were incredibly balanced against each other and very few changes even now, 10 years on.


Swordwind, and actually the release schedule, was the final nail in the coffin for me. I knew Jervis had limited resources, and to be wasting them on the Baran Seige Masters and Feral Orks just pissed me off, especially when everyone wanted to see new Chaos minis. I remember saying that in the forums and having a couple of idiots respond back that they were looking forward to the Barans bla bla bla which I am sure just justified things for Jervis. There is always those guys. They were just another Imperial Guard army to me and I was already bored of the first one.

Which does bring me at odds with what is probably a lot of people's favorite thing about EA: the army lists. Geez isnt there like a 200 page doc covering all of the offical, in development, and experiemental units? That is ridiculous. I know they are fun for some to make, but I hate the idea of having to sort through various Chaos lists for example to find one that suites my tastes, then hope I have the miniatures to do it. I actually take credit for the whole Formation + Upgrades feature because I suggested it to Jervis, While I loved the flexibility of detachment creation in Epic40k, it was too time-consuming if you weren't prepared, but at the same time, felt that the army cards in SM2/TL got old, and I wanted some way to quickly build an army, but still be able to use a random bitz or character here and there from my bitz box. I never expected things to turn into such a colossal mess.

I don't need 6+ lists for the Eldar. I just need one, and the flexibility in it to build an army as I want. And how different lists do you want anyway? There has only been so many miniatures made, and sometimes I see rules for minis that werent even made, which is dumb too, or a number of units in a formation that are near impossible to get (due to rarity and prices on Ebay). I know Flames of War does it, but thats mostly because FOW is rather time sensitive in that the units available in 1941 were very different than in 1944. In 40k, everyone is using the same kind of units the last 10,000 years.

I know some of you are going to state that this helps make lists more balanced but that is horse crap. You guys decided that 4 Land Raiders were over-priced at 400 points so you lowered them. That means any Space Marine army list with formations of 4 Land Raiders should also be lowered. That doesnt mean each list is balanced, it means the Land Raiders are. Also, there were only so many sprues made, so if you use them as a template for your list, you are just recycling many of the units anyway.

I def think its cool to have Chapter specific formations, like Death Wing, White Scars bikers and all, but I don't need a whole seperate list for that. For all slack Epic 40k gets, its Armies Book is timeless as it is so complete (for its time). It was ambitious. EA really should have done the same thing.

I dont think introducing Chaos and the Tyranids earlier would have saved Epic, but it probably would have extended its life. Then again, I hate the summoning of daemons in EA anyway, just like I hate the summoning of the Avatar, so I doubt I would have bought a lot.

Uggh. EA was such a let down.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Marine Land Raiders vs Chaos Land Raiders
PostPosted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5066
Location: Bristol
KTG17 wrote:
I don't need 6+ lists for the Eldar. I just need one, and the flexibility in it to build an army as I want. And how different lists do you want anyway? There has only been so many miniatures made, and sometimes I see rules for minis that werent even made, which is dumb too, or a number of units in a formation that are near impossible to get (due to rarity and prices on Ebay).


Then stick with the core list for each race. The first list done for each race like Biel-tann Eldar, CSM Black Legion or Stigmatus Coven Chaos Cultists generally covers most things of that race well and can be used as the standard list for that race.

Having various different variant lists for each army is definitely a strength and benefit for EpicA. I'm travelling down under for a few years and have a space marine army with me and I like being able to run the same army using different lists that play differently as it keeps things fresh. Last weekend for example I used the Salamanders list, which specialises in flamer and melta weapons and the units and army plays tactically rather differently to standard marines. There's a lot of variation between craftworlds, SM chapters, IG regiments ect in the background so why should this not be reflected in our Epic games for those of us that want them to?

KTG17 wrote:
Geez isnt there like a 200 page doc covering all of the offical, in development, and experiemental units? That is ridiculous. I know they are fun for some to make, but I hate the idea of having to sort through various Chaos lists for example to find one that suites my tastes

These days EpicA has the Tournament Pack of approved and well tested lists and the Compendium compiling the smorgasbord of lists people have put together over the years, categorised by how well tested they are. Don't want the choice of that many lists? No problem, stick to the Tournament Pack.
KTG17 wrote:
That means any Space Marine army list with formations of 4 Land Raiders should also be lowered. That doesnt mean each list is balanced, it means the Land Raiders are.

They are and we know this. Land Raiders are now 325 rather than 400 and this change is reflected across all SM variant lists. Variant lists need to be balanced as a whole though and sometimes their different elements can intereact in different ways – the deadly but short-ranged Land Raider Achilles is worth more in a list that allows it to be deployed by air than it is in the defensive ground based Imperial Fists army where it can't say. Whole separate lists for each army allows them to better balanced because the new units can be balanced by tweaking the other available selections and prices in the list.

KTG17 wrote:
There has only been so many miniatures made, and sometimes I see rules for minis that werent even made, which is dumb too, or a number of units in a formation that are near impossible to get (due to rarity and prices on Ebay).

I'm VERY glad the lists include units for models there have never been official Epic minatures for. Otherwise epic would have been much more limited and stuck in the past, there's a LOT new retroactively adding in to the 40k universe by GW over the last several years. It's always possible to convert a Land Raider to a Land Raider Redeemer say by replacing the lascannons with flamer weapons. Heck look at what people did in the Raiders supplement – multiple converted entire Necron and Dark Eldar armies from models from other races, plasticard and bits from other models. There are also numerous companies and individuals producing 6mm models that make excellent epic proxies (often far better quality than the old GW models), there's no need to be limited or to prevent rare models from being used in lists (would be pretty harsh for those players who had large collections of rare models).

KTG17 wrote:
I dont think introducing Chaos and the Tyranids earlier would have saved Epic, but it probably would have extended its life.


I agree that introducing Tyranids and Chaos earlier would have been better.

EpicA is still alive and well though, there were 15-20 or so EpicA tournaments around the world last year, that's not a dead game. I'm not aware of there having been an Epic tournament for any other edition of Epic in the last decade either and judging by that and the numbers of posts and posters about it here it seems to remain way more popular than any of the other editions of the game.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Marine Land Raiders vs Chaos Land Raiders
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:33 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:45 pm
Posts: 455
How do I know which one is a tournement list? There isnt anything by that in the table of contents.

Refering to the 212 page book here... I see 'Approved Lists'.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Marine Land Raiders vs Chaos Land Raiders
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:08 pm
Posts: 961
Location: Nice, south of France
No, I fully agree with KTG17 about the lists. All creativity is gone from creating an army, it all went into creating lists. You have to choose the right list to be able to play a certain theme, rather than build your army thematically. This is actually s**t design, even if the community loves producing that stuff.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Marine Land Raiders vs Chaos Land Raiders
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5066
Location: Bristol
For what you seem to be wanting I would suggest using the Tournament Pack instead - it's basically the original rulebook integrating the FAQs and the army lists that have been approved for tournament use by the community.

The approved lists are those considered tournament ready. In the Compendium the original list for each race is normally listed first in the approved lists for that race.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Marine Land Raiders vs Chaos Land Raiders
PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:43 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:08 pm
Posts: 242
Location: Atlanta, GA
@Atmospheric: I agree and disagree to an extent. I think the variety to lists if anything helps inspire creativity within the community and keeps EA that much more alive. However I feel that most of these lists should never make it to an approved level. In that sense I think the pure multitude of lists can muddy the water a little were that to be the case.

IMO it would have been ideal to have all primary factions canonized and made tournament legal (space marines- codex astartes, imperial guard- steel legion, chaos space marines- black legion, eldar- biel-tan, etc.) and the offshoots or more niche lists made as alternate/casual lists (blood angels, minervans, ulthwe, gargant big mob, tau viorla, etc.). It helps legitimize and balance tournaments while letting imaginations do what they please on the more casual level. In a sense that has already happened, but there are a few alternate lists out there which I may or may not agree with.

On a tangent note, I would love for any future compendiums/tournament packs to be color coded and in actual faction order like the 2008 Compendium. The random ordering of IG, Space Marine, and other lists are so hard to find at times. :(


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Marine Land Raiders vs Chaos Land Raiders
PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:33 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:08 pm
Posts: 961
Location: Nice, south of France
Well, the thing is, depending on if you want an army acting in one style or another, you have to use another list rather than be able to build your own thematic force with a list. Taking marines as an example, if you want an army efficient at air insertion, at armoured assault or based around infantry, you need to use different list. Same for any more or less chapter thematic force. And if you take any of this list and try to build something out of what it was designed to do, it will be horribly inefficient. It is the same for guards, eldars, etc.

For example, the simple fact that we felt we had to limit the core ork list to 1/3 warengines and then create another centred around warengine is just stupid in my opinion. same for tyranids, eldars, etc. At least it make sense in the imperium where Titans are not technically the same faction as guards or marines, but it is still sad that it is not simply managed by an allied rule that could also allow for a mixed marines+ guard army for example.

This is not a "tournament legal or not" critic, this is a "poor design" critic.

It is more fun to create new lists than to build an army in E:A, which is quite a failure.

Well, I know list creation is a popular hobby, and there are probably very few of us who never had a go at it. But in the end, it makes for a very fragmented game, poor playtest and most importantly to me, make the lists boring.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Marine Land Raiders vs Chaos Land Raiders
PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:50 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Posts: 925
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
Athmospheric wrote:
Taking marines as an example, if you want an army efficient at air insertion, at armoured assault or based around infantry, you need to use different list


But isn't that simpler than changing the army composition limitations based on other choices? So you can have 1/3 war engines, unless you don't take any of X, Y and Z, then you have no limitation...

I'm not sure that even the Chapter specific Marine lists have to definitely only be represented by that chapter, it's as more about representing that playstyle.

It's a shame you feel that way about it, but far from being stupid I actually think it's genius. There are always going to be issues of one sort or another when you make decisions of this kind on army creation but I think this approach helps to prevent powergaming to a large extent, just by removing options. If a list or system allows for an abusive build, it *will* be exploited by people, which can get dull to play against, or with for that matter. Furthermore, you can't blame people for abusing a system that's open to abuse, that's just human nature, far better to improve the rules of the game, which you do have control over, than rely on people to not exploit loopholes, over which you have zero control. By removing that possibility I would argue that the integrity of the system itself is maintained.

I think our finance and tax systems would do well to learn from this approach!!!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net