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

From: Vladimyr <aallen_at_...>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 20:41:17 -0500

Hi there,

<snip question re:40k usage>

> 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.

I understand that. The 40k universe is rather large. My question in that
regard was why use the newest version of 40k. I myself have played 40k from
Rogue Trader on, and I have found the newest version to be lacking in both
the fluff and rules area. While some of the ideas are good, the end result
is that 40k and indeed epic 40k have both been 'dumbed down' to streamline
the game and make it more appealing to younger gamers. Which is also why
some of the more darker histories of the 40k universe have faded into
warpspace.

So why use the dumbed down version when it's quite obvious that NetEpic is
not dumbed down?

<snip question re:AE rules>

> 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.

This concept makes a lot more sense. I've compared some rules to older
board-based games and computer so I understand where this comes from. My
concern was simply that it was a GW based motivation. And since it gets to
be play-tested before addition, giving us an opportunity to modify or choose
to remove (if it doesn't work right for NetEpic) it's certainly not a bad
thing.

> 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've always wondered what sort of stipulations GW placed on NetEpic. I was
worried that adapting rules from EA might be enough for GW to close NetEpic
down. Which would be a shame. I don't know if that is something that would
need to be checked or not.

MrFlibble
Received on Sat Jun 01 2002 - 01:41:17 UTC