Hi,
My point is that we arent changing NetEpic merely for the sake of change.
There are some who think that we try to change it for the better :)
Just because something works, it doesnt mean its fair either. Im no advocate
for change in this case, even though i tend to think that without change,
there
will be stagnation. You are of course intitled to your opinion that any
changes
made will make the game worse. The really hard part is deciding what will
make
the game better, and what will deteriorate it. Thats what we have
discussions for.
What id like to see in any discussions are reasons why it will be
better/worse.
Simply stating that they will be worse, because what we have now has been
tested
for so long isnt enough in my mind. Imagine the first bike if you will. It
worked,
you could ride around on it. Everybody who had a bike, were in essence
testing it.
If everybody were content with that bike, no new bikes would ever be made.
The
bikes today are a far cry from the first ones, and you'd be hard pressed to
find anyone
who thinks that the first bikes are better. Everything is a process, and as
history
shows us, any attempt to stop a process will just as likely help speed it
up. So,
constructive comments are in order. Why will this or that not work? Im not
trying
to sell my point of view, i understand that many people think differently
than i, and
that is a good thing. I just want to see more objectivity when discussing
rules. Feelings
should not be a part of any serious discussion, they merely cloud judgement.
This sounds
so easy in theory, but is probably one of the hardest things to do :)
Rune
----- Original Message -----
From: <nils.saugen_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 10:11 AM
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] 5.0 review
> Hi,
>
> To keep it lyrical:
>
> Change is good when change is due,
> change for the sake of change will make tomorrow blue!
>
> I pride myself on having played most armies, I guess the only two armies I
> haven't played is Nids and Squats (I've tried Necrons but not Slann). Nids
> because the fluff doesn't appeal to me, Squats because I haven't had a
> chance yet! (However, I've spent a lot of time developing a strategy for
the
> Squats, I'll have to borrow Eivinds squats for a game or two to test my
> teories)
>
> I cannot for my bare life find one single rule in the original GW armies
> that is unfair! Eldar needs their freecards, Chaos needs their powers
> represented by their cards, squats need their extra break point, Space
> Marines needs to be allowed to use flyers etc. etc.
>
> We have had great difficulties beating chaos here in Norway, but I'm sure
it
> can be done! However, to change the rules of an army just because I cant
> beat it in a game would for me be the ultimate defeate! For instance I'd
> rather spend the rest of my life fighting chaos within the boundaries
> present today, than to change one single rule!
>
> On the other hand we have had the developement Slann wich where the first
> true NetEpic army, and it has been a difficult task indeed. In the
beginning
> I found the army utterly cheesy and wanted nothing to do with it. When I
> realised it was here to stay, I chose to invest in the army myself(If you
> can't beat them, join them!?!). Now I'm able to look at Slann both as a
> player and an opponent as I am able to do for most of the other armies.
> Thus, I find it difficult to find any rules that are utterly unfair!!!
>
> Therefore I feel a great sadness for the future of NetEpic as I see
changes
> coming about that in my humble opinion will lower the quality of the game.
>
>
> Just my 2 NOK
>
> Nils
> keeper of the past
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rune Karlsen [mailto:rune.karlsen6_at_...]
> Sent: 14. mai 2002 09:51
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] 5.0 review
>
>
> Hi,
>
> as with all things, there will always be a difference of opinion. What you
> think
> works fine, others might see as something that has potential to become so
> much
> more. Rules that you clutch to your chest and call dogmas, others might
> think are
> archaic and long overdue for revision. The beauty of discussion on the
net,
> is that
> everybody gets their say, and we will all benefit from that.
>
> I do agree that some things need to change, simply because they are
unfair.
> This goes
> for most armies. But, we also need to be reasonable, and keep an open
mind.
> Units
> arent necessarily good or bad, it all depends on how they're used, and in
> combination
> with what forces.
>
> Rune
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <nils.saugen_at_...>
> To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 9:38 AM
> Subject: [NetEpic ML] 5.0 review
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I might be out of line, but the following comes to mind when I skim
> through
> > the mail traffic on the list...
> >
> > This is my word of caution;
> >
> > "If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it!"
> >
> > Nils
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> 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 Tue May 14 2002 - 09:19:33 UTC