Hi!
My sentiments exactly. I'd prefer we work, parallel to them, but separate. We have a different take on this issue and in a funny way we are more of a target audience for this new game than even those who play e40k since its "us" Jervis is pitching to get back into the game.
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "tzeentch666" <tzeentch666_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Epic 40K revision
> --- In netepic_at_y..., deaconblue3_at_j... wrote:
> > If this group, en masse, wants to get involved, I highly suggest
> > subscribing to the "regular" epic list (epic_at_y...). and work
> > with the regulars there. They have been very active in "tweaking"
> both
> > E40K, and AT2 over the years, much as this group has done for the
> older
> > versions. They have some working projects, like Andy Skinner's
> Titan
> > Project, Mike Looney's E41K project, and there are some others.
> Plus, if
> > that does happen, and the two "sides" get together, it shows far
> more
> > support for the Epic style of gaming, and that we all are
> interested in
> > seeing Epic survive, even if we are not overly impressed with the
> rules
> > themselves.
>
> * I wouldn't mind cooperating with the E40K list in this matter to
> tell the truth - but they are going to have a very different approach
> to the subject as they have been working with the official version
> and will feel more tied to the E40K mechanics probably.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Received on Mon Feb 11 2002 - 13:19:55 UTC