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

From: michael presnal <lordthor2001_at_...>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 07:32:34 -0400

I agree with you sir! I also try to vote in the same matter.


��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Lord Thor Champion of Khorne

>From: "Vladimyr"
>Reply-To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
>To:
>Subject: [NetEpic ML] Comments about the New Version of NetEpic
>Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 19:45:49 -0500
>
>Hi there,
>
> The discussions of late on the validity of such a large revision have been
>quite interesting. It is interesting to note that a lot of the polls that
>decide these issues have not had a great deal of votes in them. Yet the
>e-mails have flowed bountifully.
>
> While I must confess I have been fairly comfortable to sit back and watch
>these discussions go on, as I have many other things that are going on at
>the moment that are requiring a lot more time and effort (unfortunately), I
>have tried to participate in the polls at the very least.
>
> I do have a disagreement with the way certain things are being projected.
>
> 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.
>
> Once the Alpha rules are determined (through the polls and discussion) I am
>hoping that there will be a chance to playtest these rules as a whole,
>before they are set in stone. And that it will be a decent amount of
>testing (not just a couple of games). Because if it's not, then these
>changes (and there are many - regardless of whether they are optional or
>core) will change the game in a way that people won't like and may not work
>the way it looks like they will.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Which may or may not be good. But a lot of this depends on how much of a
>chance all of us are going to get to playtest and give feedback. Some of
>the discussions seem to say we will, some seem to say we won't. And some I
>fear, are just going to be stubborn either way.
>
> NetEpic improved on my favorite game. I'd hate to see that hard work go
>backwards because of lack of playtesting, petty bickering or any number of
>other things.
>
> I'll stop raving like a madman here. Don't want you all falling asleep.
>
>MrFlibble
>
>
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
>Buy Stock for $4
>and no minimums.
>FREE Money 2002.
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/JMSolB/TM
>---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>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/

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here
Received on Sat Jun 01 2002 - 11:32:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:59:43 UTC