[NetEpic ML] Re: NetEpic 4.0

From: Tzeentch <tzeentch666_at_...>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 20:57:38 -0700

I can't see how, except maybe place them around because they look cool.

Ken
 
> > Since we don't use blast markers its harder then it
> > sounds ;)
> accualy , do you think there would be a way to incorporate that into
> netepic without changing the rules much ? I really like that idea to
> because alls you have to do is look at the board and you can tell where
> your getting killed and suceeding ; maybe and opitional rule .


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/netepic
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com




From tzeentch666_at_...

Delivered-To: listsaver-of-netepic_at_egroups.com
Mailing-List: contact netepic-owner_at_egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: netepic_at_egroups.com
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/netepic/
Reply-To: netepic_at_egroups.com
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-netepic_at_egroups.com
Received: (qmail 17333 invoked by uid 7770); 29 Apr 1999 00:17:05 -0000
Received: from mc.egroups.com (207.138.41.138)
  by vault.egroups.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 1999 00:17:05 -0000
Received: from [10.1.2.5] by mc.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Apr 1999 00:17:05 -0000
From: tzeentch666_at_...
To: netepic_at_egroups.com
Subject: [NetEpic ML] RSVP: Should NetEpic 4.0 Abstract More Units?
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Should NetEpic 4.0 abstract more units to remove redundancy (moving the detailed entries to the Optional rules)?
E.G. ONE type of dreadnought (not seven!), one type of Falcon (for both models), etc etc.

----
Please select one of the following:
   o Yes, abstract as much as possible
   o Yes, but not to the extent of E40K
by going to the following Web form:
   http://www.egroups.com/vote?id=925345016411
Thank you!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/netepic
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications
From tzeentch666_at_... 
Delivered-To: listsaver-of-netepic_at_egroups.com
Mailing-List: contact netepic-owner_at_egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: netepic_at_egroups.com
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/netepic/
Reply-To: netepic_at_egroups.com
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-netepic_at_egroups.com
Received: (qmail 17902 invoked by uid 7770); 29 Apr 1999 00:18:11 -0000
Received: from mc.egroups.com (207.138.41.138)
  by vault.egroups.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 1999 00:18:11 -0000
Received: from [10.1.2.6] by mc.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Apr 1999 00:18:12 -0000
From: tzeentch666_at_...
To: netepic_at_egroups.com
Subject: [NetEpic ML] RSVP: Should NetEpic 4.0 Abstract More Units?
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Should NetEpic 4.0 abstract more units to remove redundancy (moving the detailed entries to the Optional rules)?
E.G. ONE type of dreadnought (not seven!), one type of Falcon (for both models), etc etc.
----
Please select one of the following:
   o Yes, abstract as much as possible
   o Yes, but not to the extent of E40K
   o Yes, but only for the really wierd ones (Flamer Marines)
   o No, keep the units as they are
   o No, in fact we should have more units
by going to the following Web form:
   http://www.egroups.com/vote?id=925345117398
Thank you!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/netepic
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

Received on Sat Apr 24 1999 - 03:57:38 UTC