Hi all,
I've been watching the discussions on missile types and rules with interest,
particularly the thread on salvo missile fire, because we have
already got rules in playtest for similar systems - salvo missile
batteries, Jump Torps and other ideas, which we have not yet released to
general playtesting on the list because they are still being "kicked around"
in limited playtesting groups. When we get them a bit more finalised we'll
probably put them on the main list to see what you think to them. We've had
these under development for several months now, as part of the proposed
"FTIII" modifications, and it is fascinating to see how the
threads on the list often parallel our own trains of thought - guess
we're all on pretty much the same wavelength....:)
Please don't flood us with requests to see the drafts before they're ready
- we'll post them when we and our immediate playtest group think we're
sufficiently happy with them.
> Hi all,
This is what I LOVE about GZG and its products. As well as being
top-of-the-line games, the creators keep us up to date on developments
and join in on our discussions of the systems. Its a helluva lot more than you
could even consider getting from certain other capitalist mega-game
companies.
> Jason Stephensen wrote:
GW always works rapidly, thus to guarantee the steady stream of new product on
the market, rules quality is secondary to the sales of figs. GW will always
support a shoddy system as long as the figure sales keep their projected pace.
As for the value of their game magazine White Dwarf, its generally worthless
to the gamer unless used as a catalogue.
> I recall that on the space-marine list they asked us for ideas on the
It
> seems to me that unless the game is easilly power gamed the evil
I agree. It seems GW's rules quality, instead of maturing with experience,
just gets worse. Almost everywhere there seems to be nothing but contempt for
this "epic 40K".
> They even admitted once that the groups they had on playtesting were
One of the most annoying aspects of GW is that they seem to blame the gamers
for finding and exploiting their rules, boasting our lack of proper "attitude"
so as to deflect opinion away from their lack of vision. GW's probably the
only large games corp. that while having a large gamer population where it
could easily derive playtesting benefits (and many would do it gladly for
free)and does not do so. They seem to believe that a few "studio" games will
come up with every possible situation imaginable and those that later appear
are due to poor gamer attitude.
On another note..
Having recently played Dirtside II, I was wondering if a full conversion of
all epic models to DSII. I've seen some attempts posted on some web pages and
that has wetted my appetite to try this out.
Is there any interest for such a thing?
> This is what I LOVE about GZG and its products. As well as being
Actually, GW aka the Evil Empire (at least on this list) tried to do the
same thing, but with its aggressive release schedule, a small group of games
designers being responsible for a broad variety of games, and the sheer volume
generated by their larger player base, it soon proved impossible. A shame
really, for that same aggressive release schedule occasionally leaves gaping
holes in their rules and they need to distribute
clear, well-considered solutions and patches. Too bad their house organ
fails in this regard.
> Actually, GW aka the Evil Empire (at least on this list) tried to do
> games designers being responsible for a broad variety of games, and the
> sheer volume generated by their larger player base, it soon proved
I recall that on the space-marine list they asked us for ideas on the
new epic97, and even claimed that they had taken ideas that the list had
already chatted about. The trouble was after that we heard nothing back from
them, and when the game came out it was such a disappointment to so many
people that I know of who loved the previous game that they dropped it out. It
seems to me that unless the game is easilly power gamed the evil empire
dosen't support it.
They even admitted once that the groups they had on playtesting were friendly
players, and while they are the best type to actually play against, the power
vampires out there are the ones that turn up at cons and tournies with every
hole in the rules exploited to the max and spoil all the fun of the game. If
they managed to playtest their games better then they might not be so hideous
to play.
> Tom
> I recall that on the space-marine list they asked us for ideas on the
One interesting thing I noticed about the other day. I was flipping through a
White Dwarf and noticed the price for Epic97 in the back was listed at
$120Aus. "Strange", I thought, "When it was released I'm sure it retailed at
$150." So I check an earlier WD that was in the store and lo and behold I was
right. They've dropped the price for it over here. I wonder if that could be
because its not selling as well as they hoped, eh? I know they are very
disappointed with its performance. Aaaaaawwwwww.
> At 11:13 PM 8/11/97 +0000, Peter Ramos wrote:
I think so. I've sent several people my Marine and Ork conversions. Not
everyone agreed with them, though. My philosophy was to stick with DS2 as
the main basis and adapt the GW background/minis/etc. to it, rather than
the other way around.
I ended up building the vehicles as per the DS2 rules. This resulted in a Land
Raider that couldn't transport troops. To fix this, I created another Land
Raider model with less firepower but more cargo capacity. I also created a
couple of other vehicles (a HQ vehicle and a counter battery radar vehicle)
based on the Rhino chassis. Some people liked this idea, but others detested
it. It depends on whether you want the resulting fusion to be "true to DS2" or
"true to GW".
Have a go at it, though. I'm particularly interested in seeing Eldar stats.
> I agree. It seems GW's rules quality, instead of maturing with
I like the newer epic 40K, it's a change from the up in your face, here
comes my super character/unit. "my space wolfs are better than your
white scars because i have a higher WS...
The new system is from more of a strategically point of view. I tend to like
the large scale.
As far as GW goes... in my opinion they have a lot to learn about making games
from a gamers pov. They know how to make money already. But, it seems that the
only reason that they are still going strong is because of it's occult
following. I admit that even I play most all GW games because that's what
other gamers in the area play... It's no fun playing DSII by my self. I love
the GZG idea's the generic kind or flavor so that I can play any way I want.
But, it's hard to convince players to set down a game that they are used to
and open up to new ones, especially when they have
300+ dollars per army invested.
I think that with Star Grunt and Dirt Side GZG has made a move on 40K and Epic
being the same scales (give or take) and being able to utilize your existing
miniatures. Materials needed are not expensive and you can go as you like, any
setting, any time.
I've used parts or DSII and most of FT for many Epic/40K campaigns FT
for
the planet to planet fight... (in the warp/ out the warp) and epic / DS
for the large scale combat.. plus you can still have that great leader
character Rangnar...
What it comes down to is that gamers should open their mind and take all the
best from every game put it together to make an experience...
$0.02 worth
CMC
On Tuesday, August 12, 1997 2:10 PM, Chris McCurry
[SMTP:CMCCURR@vastar.com]
wrote:
> [quoted text omitted]
Nothing at all to do with RE: [OFFICIAL] Salvo Missiles etc.
Please change the subject line on this thread its driving me nuts!
sincerely
On Aug 11, 1997 at 6:13:04 PM, Peter Ramos <pramos1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> One of the most annoying aspects of GW is that they seem to blame the
Caveat: I haven't played much GW stuff lately, and while I played Epic 2e, it
was before _Titan Legions_ and all the other supplements had come out.
(Incidently, I think the first edition plus the _Codex Titanicus_ mods
was most of the way towards doing it right, and they lost the way after that.)
To some degree this is an "American board wargame" vs. "English miniatures"
tradition discrepancy. In my experience (both from reading about it and with
the English wargamers I have met), the English don't understand the American
necessity to plug every hole, when simple common sense will suffice.
I think this also applies to other areas. I heard a story about an American
attending school in Britain, who was introduced to rugby. At one point the
Amercian simply threw a pass downfield, American-football style. This
caused quite a consternation among the other players. He was told that while
such a move was not technically illegal, it is just simply "not done".
I think the problem with GW isn't that they don't get it right at first, but
that they screw it up as they keep adding rules to cover new figures. The new
rules are necessary because GW isn't a game company, they are a miniatures
company, and to get people to buy the new figures, the new figures need to be
more powerful -- or at least different -- from what is already out
there. As a result, a ruleset that worked fine when the game comes out has
some many new parts bolted on to it that it begins to look like Frankenstein's
monster. The
same thing happened, I am told, with 40k -- when Rogue Trader came out,
the Adeptus Astartes kicked ass, but by tyhe time the 40k box set came out,
they were average at best.
> I think the problem with GW isn't that they don't get it right at
The
> new rules are necessary because GW isn't a game company, they are a
While I have to agree that GW's policy of the next miniature being more
powerful than the last seems prevalent, i used to play the origional release
of 40K. If I remember right the marines were not truly awesome, they regularly
got a kicking from the Eldar. It wasn't until GW decided that 'Marines are
Best' that they increase S and T, plus gave marines extra HTH and shooting
capabilities that marines really began to truly 'Kick Ass'. On the other hand
the origional rules for Terminators (WD 109 I think) resulted in unbelievable
powerful troops (jump packs, grenades, tendril sensors, kitchen sinks, you
name it the terminators had it). What the origional 40K did have though, was a
greater sense of game balance, sure some things were odd but a little tweaking
and it was a good game. The second version of 40k, the less said the better
for me.