tzeentch666_at_... wrote:
>
> 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!
> o No, keep the units as they are
> o No, in fact we should have more units
> These are my choices either keep them the way they are or add more units.If you cut down on the units what do you do with the other pieces. Also if you limit the units I would get bored playing the same units over and over.You should define the rules for the units better then they have now.So we don`t spend half the time argueing about the rules.Need better flyer rules and pricing of units (Death Strike Missles etc...).
Later all
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Does your free web site address contain more letters than the alphabet?
> Register a domain name with DomainDirect. A domain with NO hosting fees.
> Visit http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/49 for full details.
>
> eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/netepic
> http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home:
http://www.eGroups.com/group/netepic
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications
Received on Sat May 01 1999 - 02:57:57 UTC