Erik M, it´s your choice - if the old rules are so much better, more flavourful, orky, etc. - play SM2!

For a balanced, fast moving, tactical game, I much, much prefer E:A, without any additions or amendments. If I want to add special rules, I´d include them in a scenario.

Messing up the GT lists is just a bad idea IMO.

_________________
Visit www.epic-battles.de the ultimate german epic site&forum!

Erik:  You clearly did not read my post as you completely missed both points in it.

The first point was simply to explain what I meant by my earlier post - at your request, I might add.  I did not defend any specific rules.  The original question was about why players on Epicomms were negative about 40K.  In my response to that question I explained that the perception of players on Epicomms is that 40K tactics are more based on rules mechanics than Epic and that perception is part of the negative attitude towards 40K.  If you disagree with that assessment, fine, but your disagreement about whether the opinion is correct does not change the fact that the opinion is widely held.

The second point, from the Ork example, was to illustrate the random "orky" SM2 rules you praised were not universally fun.  In the example, they introduced too much randomness and became markedly un-fun for everyone involved.

_________________
Neal

And I don't advocate flip-flop either. But sure there's room for some orkyness in nEA too?

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

But they aren't all still there!  

Thankfully, there is tremendous grace in what models are allowed in EA, but the "Fun Orks" and their wacky gear of destruction flat died out of 40K after both 2nd editions were replaced.  Having them live on in spirit is great and I don't think anyone is arguing for the unmitigated return of the SM2 Orks.  As Neal mentioned, SM2 games could at times be decided by downright scary luck.  I'm tremendously thankful I'll never see Mortarion on a lucky streak again!

I do think we could find subtle ways, like the Mekboy Kards, to bring more Orky flavor into EA, but I wouldn't want to see it go much farther than that.  I'd guess the bind in EA surrounding this sort of thing is that if it was done for Orks, you'd need to give every_single_army a similar treatment.

_________________
WAAARGH!!
The Lost & the Dipped

It's just a different sense of what is "orky".

I find the list and rules to be quite orky.  A horde of infantry rolling 30 dice needing 8's to-hit is orky to me.  Always wanting to double move or assault is orky.  Always rallying as long as the mob is big enough is orky.  Huge mobs of field artillery that won't shoot at anything out of line of sight because they can't see it explode is orky.  Always having the biggest, meanest Ork "fumpin' hedz" to keep the boyz in line is orky.  Throwing grots into the breach (or breech) is orky.

_________________
Neal

Absolutely.

With player experience ranging from when Orks were the comic relief for 40K to the "Green Marines", there will definitely be some differences of opinion.

Completely out of curiosity, since official development for Epic has apparently ceased, when do items that are newer additions to the 40K universe come into consideration for EA?  Are new potential units/vehicles vetted here by the community or do we wait for GW to give a yay or nay to something?

For example, GW plugs all it's resources into a relatively undeveloped race like Dark Eldar and completely redesigns the race giving it all sorts of new 28mm vehicles, troop types, and FW Titans.  None of these new items have any similarity to the DE lists that were developed and published in Moscovian's book, so there is now a significant gap between the official representation of DE and ours.  Does the Epic list just keep ticking along way out of step or is some move made to align the lists?

_________________
WAAARGH!!
The Lost & the Dipped

There's no set answer to that, Ghudra.  As an overall concept, we don't want to be constantly going back and trying to "40K-ize" every previous Epic creation.  It's unmanageable from a game-design perspective and we no longer have the connections to GW insider information that we used to so it would be a never-ending game of "catch-up."

That said, most of us would like to remain relevant to SG/GW to the extent possible.  Many of the people on these boards have contributed material that is now in print by GW, official and part of the canon.  There is still some long-range aspiration to have our outside projects eventually make it to an official status.  In that respect, we have to consider when it's necessary to curve back in towards GW studio specifics.  Some minor deviation is okay based on perspectives of scale and different game systems but the acceptable divergence is limited if there's any hope of getting to be official.

Generally speaking, new units, even if they are "core" units per revised background, should be relegated to new army lists instead of retro-fitted into existing lists.  For example, the LRC is in the Black Templars list and the LR Redeemer is in the Salamanders list as those are thematically appropriate but they are not planned to be options in the Codex Marines list from the rulebook.

With respect to stats for new units, it's an ongoing negotiation among the community members.  We reach consensus on such things fairly quickly even without playtesting, but a bit of playtesting usually quickly solidifies it.  All new lists or in-development lists which include the new unit quickly start using the same stats.  Occasionally there are long-standing disputes like the Thunderhawk Transport but they are by far the exception.

_________________
Neal

I sometimes feel that the whole Apocalypse business is about cramming the fun of Epic into 40K. I do not see any need for epicifying 40K lists' and rules' developments. If anything, a lot of vehicles and troops have entered 40K from Epic.

I agree that the difference between Epic and 40K Orks is perceptible, but I also agree with Neal, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Also, given the state of Codex development lately, the different races and armies tend to swing back and forth quite a lot between different versions. 40K Orks were all about Assault in one incarnation, in the latest they are back to shooty. In 2nd ed. they were mainly random and funny. I would prefer if Epic lists did not swing as much as 40K development, but kept their army concepts more stable. If someone wants to create the current 40K flavour in an army list, why not create a specific WAAAAGH list for that kind of Ork army? Why should there be a definite (one 40K army cycle) ork list for something as random as Ork Waaaghs?

Just my musings on the subject,
Fredmans

_________________
Follow my Epic painting projects: Tyranids vs Steel Legion and Inquisition vs Lost and the Damned @
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14636

The "Apocalypse business" is business.  It's about creating a stronger link between the standard part of the 40K hobby & Forge World's super-premium segment.  Epic just provided the inspiration.  The "fun" of Apoc has more to do with the novelty of seeing such large forces fielded at 40K scale rather than any feature of gameplay.

The codex creep in 40K is primarily a mechanism for promoting "The Hobby™" and the game is secondary.  The need for new miniatures to create new revenue means that new rules hit the game of 40K faster than it can be balanced.  

These same issues arose in Epic with Titan Legions bringing a large influx of new miniatures & rules that impacted the balance of SM2.

_________________
WAAARGH!!
The Lost & the Dipped

Just to say doubling and clipping are ok representations of 'real life'. Doubling of course being formations going for a rapid advance where lots of stuff can't set up or is forced to fire inaccurately on the move, and clipping being engaging part of a formation and disrupting it enough to make the rest of it reel back.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Sorry TRC I have to disagree about clipping.

IMO, clipping is not realistically represented in EA.

I can understand that it could happen that one unit gets close enough to part of another to open fire with their short range weapons, and if it was just that, like a shooting attack, I would agree.

But clipping assaults are resolved in the same manner as full-blooded, hand to hand, close combat assaults.  And those are too quite different situations.

One is close range sniping at the edge of the enemy.  The other is a full assault designed to push the enemy out the way.

Personally, I would like to see a rule that specified that over half the (defending) formation must be in engagement range before resolution was made (otherwise the units exchnage FF attacks as if it was shooting).  I realise this would be a rule that most people probably see as unecessary, but IMO it would remove a lot of the "annoying" elements of clipping from EA.

It would also help the current imbalance between CC-specialists and FF-specialists.

(Maybe it's just me that is a little tired of every FF assault being an attempt to clip, and all the extreme micro-measuring associated with that kind of play.)

Interesting idea - but what would be the effect in practice? Presumably scouts couldn't be assaulted as they could string out so much?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Lol.  You know I actually started typing something about how you would need some way to accomodate scouts and other ZOC monkey-business... but as the rule is never going to be used I went back and took all that out.

But if we could assume that there were such a rule, and it did have a way of accomdating scouts etc, then the effect would be to remove clipping as a "safe" way to break an enemy formation.

If you want to engage the enemy with the purpose of driving them off you would need to actually face those enemies.