RE: Re[2]: [NetEpic ML] [v5.0] AP vs AT

From: <jyrki.saari_at_...>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 09:55:48 +0300

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext darius spano [mailto:dmanspano_at_yahoo.com]
> Sent: 01 June 2002 01:35
> To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: [NetEpic ML] [v5.0] AP vs AT
>
>
> No one is saying 5.A is bad. what we are saying that
> there are a lot of changes. From what I can gather the
> optional rules will be 100 pages thick and the core
> rules 32 pages thick. In the last 2 months or so
> revisions have been taking place. How many games of
> Net Epic have you thrown down in that time? Me
> personally, 1. New rules and units need testing before
> they should become even optional not to mention core.

This is something I've heard one time too many. How on EARTH are new rules going to be playtested if they're not given optional status???????? By putting them to incoming and praying that someone actually playtests them??? Right. I've yet to receive a _single_ line of feedback about any rules I've put there.

> I
> remember testing and testing for the Slann and that is
> now probably one of the most scrutinized armies we
> have added to the list (more than 1 group of players
> were involved in this endeavour).
> Someone on the list
> said "Keep it simple stupid". Can we improve 4.1's
> intellect? Yes, but not from grunt status to general
> status. I will read over 5.A when it comes out and I
> will probably try it out, but based on the 30+ polls I
> have voted in in the last 2 months I am not so sure I
> will stick with it.
> Darius
>

Jyrki Saari
Received on Mon Jun 03 2002 - 06:55:48 UTC