Re: [NetEpic ML] Comments about the New Version of NetEpic

From: Jarreas Underwood <jarreas_at_...>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 21:26:44 -0400

> From my understanding (originally), the purpose of these polls was to
>determine rules for an ALPHA edition of the new set of rules. Some people
>are acting like these rules will be concrete. Which, I'm hoping, they are
>not.

Your hopes are indeed founded. I just asked for proofreaders for 5A and
I'll be putting their comments together into a beta version. I'll upload
that to the Yahoo site in a week or two, when things get back to me and I
have time. The beta version will be playtested all summer, and maybe
sometime around Christmas we'll have a 5.0 that's fit to bear the name of a
numbered version.

As a note: yes, there will be quite a number of optional rules. That's part
of playtesting a new version - a lot of things sound good, but are rotten
in an actual game. We need to separate the wheat from the chaff, and the
only way to do that is to try everything out and see what works.


> Which brings me to my other point. Why the comparison between the new
>version of netepic and the newest version of 40k. I don't understand that.
>The new rules for the blood angels are based solely on that from what has
>been discussed so far. NetEpic was made to move away from the mistakes made
>in Space Marine and salvage what was left of it. So why keep it in line
>with GW's current line of thought? Why not use 2nd Ed. 40k rules? They are
>certainly more in keeping with the earlier versions of Epic/NetEpic.

Personally, I think it's because the 40k universe have so much background
already printed up. It's well and good to say "we're creating out own
game", but with the sheer volume of material out for 40k, it's hard to
distance ourselves from it. I know it's affected me - I've been going
through dozens of 40k websites looking for fluff and scenarios, and I
*know* it's changed the way I think about some of the Net Epic armies. It's
a fact that a lot of Net Epic players also play regular 40k, and their
views of the universe are shaped from that.

In short, the game *mechanics* are different, and that's what Net Epic was
origionally intended to remedy. However, the *reasons* behind creating
unique chapters and the specific rules for them is still very much rooted
in regular 40k. There are exceptions (such as NE Slaan and GW Necrons), but
we really can't change this.


> And why the rush to incorporate some of the new rules from E.A. Not only
>is that treading on intellectual copyright toes (I can't see how GW would
>approve of adapting rules from a game they ARE going to release) it changes
>the rules of NetEpic in a fundamental way.

For one thing, I'm perfectly willing to take good ideas from where I can
get them. E:A has a number of nice ideas, as do Void, Dirtside II and
Battletech - and I'm willing to take ideas from all of them. Have, in fact,
done so.

Secondly, the entire Net Epic concept is on very shaky ground vis-a-vis
GW's 40k universe. We use their universe, their armies, their descriptions
and their miniatures, and if we ever try to make a penny off of it we'll
have lawyers come down on us so hard we'll think it was the Hammer of God
(TM). I'm less worried about Jervis complaining that we took his blast
marker idea (actually I ran into the suppression marker in Dirtside II well
over a year ago), than I am about his saying we took the Space Marine / Ork
/ Eldar names and we can't use them anymore.


>I'll stop raving like a madman here. Don't want you all falling asleep.
>
>MrFlibble

No worries. *grin* You raised good questions and made me think about my
answers. I'm just as happy having to define my reasons for doing this.
-Yar
Received on Sat Jun 01 2002 - 01:26:44 UTC