Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Epic article by Jervis newly posted at SG
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=10081		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  Markconz [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:41 am ]
Post subject:  Epic article by Jervis newly posted at SG
As if to just torment epic players further  :angry:

http://www.specialist-games.com/assets/WD6.pdf

Work is already underway on a new Capital Imperialis model for the Imperial Guard, a Land Raider Crusader for the Space Marines, and Squiggoths for the Orks. In the long run our aim is to return Epic to its rightful place as the game system that introduces new vehicles and troop types into the Warhammer 40,000 background, and to this end we?re working on concepts for several brand new units for each army. Keep your eyes open for them early next year?

Yeah...  Ah well SG stuff up is DRM and EW gain I guess.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:45 am ]
Post subject:  Epic article by Jervis newly posted at SG
I TOLD YOU ALL THAT NEW UNITS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE INTRODUCED INTO THE CORE ARMIES. :D :D


So ummm. Post-rule review then? :)
Author:  Markconz [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:56 am ]
Post subject:  Epic article by Jervis newly posted at SG
Why bother posting this at all when it is full of rubbish about what is happening with Epic? And the battle report is just that one posted in the flash players. Bah.

E&C alternative lists in epic for each of the 40k races was still the plan, not introducing new units into the existing lists. That's what he really means there I think.  Jervis talked about that a fair bit at the time, using as an example DBM (ancients) rules which has over 400+ unique  lists. Though obviously all these lists variant lists were supposed to become official (eg White Scars, Speed Freaks, Ferals and Siegers).
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:00 am ]
Post subject:  Epic article by Jervis newly posted at SG
E&C alternative lists in epic for each of the 40k races was still the plan, not introducing new units into the existing lists.

You're wrong. :)

Honest.
Author:  Markconz [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:03 am ]
Post subject:  Epic article by Jervis newly posted at SG

(Hena @ Jul. 25 2007,07:58)
QUOTE
No I don't mind posting it, sorry if that was the impact. Just pondered that it's not really that tormenting to me anyway :D.

I've just had to make 86 pages of updated Epic Rulebook because Specialist Games is too useless to do it. Maybe I'm just extra sensitive right now...  :D
Author:  Markconz [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:05 am ]
Post subject:  Epic article by Jervis newly posted at SG

(Evil and Chaos @ Jul. 25 2007,08:00)
QUOTE
E&C alternative lists in epic for each of the 40k races was still the plan, not introducing new units into the existing lists.


You're wrong. :)

Honest.
Well I wouldn't mind being wrong. I preferred Epic 40K's approach where one big comprehensive army list covered every possible army for each race. Except that could led to min-maxing formations etc.
Author:  alansa [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Epic article by Jervis newly posted at SG
you've updated the EA rulebook Mark?
Author:  Markconz [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Epic article by Jervis newly posted at SG

(alansa @ Jul. 25 2007,12:13)
QUOTE
you've updated the EA rulebook Mark?

Yeah got sick of waiting. See here:

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin....t=9988;
Author:  Moscovian [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Epic article by Jervis newly posted at SG
Mark,

I know I've emailed you privately but I wanted to give my public thanks for all the work on this.

Everyone, see page three here and think of it in relation to this thread.
Author:  nealhunt [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Epic article by Jervis newly posted at SG

(Evil and Chaos @ Jul. 25 2007,09:00)
QUOTE
E&C alternative lists in epic for each of the 40k races was still the plan, not introducing new units into the existing lists.


You're wrong. :)

Honest.
Not that it matters at this point, but he's not wrong.  Jervis was quite explicit on this point numerous times.  He went on at length about how "retrofitting" new units into 40K armies had caused no end of balance problems.  All new units were to be featured in new army lists.  Jervis even argued the point with some of the playtesters to a limited extent.  There was absolutely no question as to his intent.

Your parsing of statements about new units (that article and the notes in the rulebook you've referenced in tha past) in the absence of that context is understandable but it's still completely wrong.  Any of the original playtesters will tell you the exact same thing and they have done so on numerous occasions.

If you want to argue the merits of sticking to that design philosophy, I have no problem with that.  Just stop stating it didn't exist.
Author:  Steve54 [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Epic article by Jervis newly posted at SG
Maybe Moscovian and Markconz would be more productive members of the ERC than some of those in it. (excluding Neal from that comment)
Author:  Tas [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Epic article by Jervis newly posted at SG
Out of interest, when was the last time Jervis publically wrote or commented on EA , its current state and way (or lack of) ahead?
Author:  Otterman [ Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Epic article by Jervis newly posted at SG
Capitol Imp concept sketches liberated from Warseer:
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/