RE: [NetEpic ML] Revision 5.0 guidlines

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 19:02:45 -0400

Hi!
 
--->I suggest, in order to avoid a huge rulebook, to try to shorten
rules as much as possible, specially basic ones. Perhaps a way to
improve this idea would be adding a FAQ at the end of each book (or
separately). We could leave shortened rules, and if clarification is
needed refer to complementary FAQ, with a link or numbering FAQ (as in
Avalon Hill rulesets and FAQ).
 
Of course, rules should include the minimum information needed, so a
search for basic details on a unit doesn't mean looking up&down
constantly. I always say that it's better a big FAQ book than a big
rulebook.
 
This idea needs would mean a little effort in synthetising, but it's
just that, an idea...
 
Applied or not (this idea, I mean), I keep suggesting adding FAQ, as
this is a major help when you are playing. Asides from extracting
conclusions from rules discussions in the list, we could extract some
Q&A from the discussions. I mean, Q&A that might be a bit distant to add
to rules, but perhaps interesting for players (veterans or not) to have
as side support. I can't recall any specific question at the moment
(Perhaps reminding that greater daemons cannot climb buildings?), but I
expect many questions about limit situations which obviously won't go to
the rules but may be interesting to have recorded. Just in case...
 
(more below)
 
 
That’s a very good idea, since we already started one for chaos, I guess
its good to do it for all armies.
 
---> When I returned from holidays (yesterday), I had more than 400
mails (more than a half from Netepic) in hotmail waiting to be read
(Imagine my face...). Adding this to the fact that in the next three
months I will have little time for outside university activities (one
year to go!), I realized it is better to not take responsabilty on this.
BUT I'll promise that I'll try to give as much feedback as I can about
the revision. I think it's better this way than trying to do sthing
which I'm not sure to be able to handle in the long run; causing much
disturbance to a lot of people who had worked very hard (and adding
another stone to the Southern-European-Impredictabilty-Myth :-) ).
 
So, for the moment I'll keep lurking until I find those little moments
to write to the list.
 
BTW I'm glad there is no deadline in this project. This way rules can be
revised in full and we will avoid GW typical incoherences due to hurries
(and comercial interests, of course).
 
No problem. I know not everyone can commit to this in an involved
manner, but participation is equally important!
 
Albert Farr�
 
P.S. Has anyone heard anything about the so loudly promised
hearing-about-feedback-from-outside-GW-team for their new epic project
(Armageddon, wasn't it?)?
 
<sigh> don’t get me started on that one. I have heard that in firepower
#8 he is already trying out rules and such and the feedback requested is
people sending him e-mails with opinions on what he has already DONE.
Obviously don’t expect a direct answer or any commitment on using any
ideas. So far it seems he already has decided what to do with the game
and “feedback” is just a way to measure how popular his ideas are before
release. Did anyone REALLY think they would have a direct say in the
game’s development? Remember who we’re talking about here……
 
Peter
Received on Mon Apr 02 2001 - 23:02:45 UTC