Re: [NetEpic ML] [v5.0] Blood Angels proposal; forgot something

From: Albert Farr� Benet <cibernyam_at_...>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:40:32 +0200

I prefer thinking about it and correcting it before it's too late and a lot of effort is wasted.

-> Do you imply that I am not thinking at all?

You know this is not what I meant.

>Well, thank you very much. It's very interesting to note one attitude among the listmembers. Namely, "Oh, I do support changes as long as anything doesn't change."

No, the attitude is "I do support changes which keep a balance on the game, but not changes which may lead to exploits or to other changes which may unbalance the game"

>No matter what I say it isn't going to change your mind and no matter what you say it isn't going to change my mind.

Maybe in some aspects yes, maybe in others not. My prioritary approach to the revision is to balance some things in the game which seem a bit odd through new ideas/rules or a redefinition/correction of the existing ones. My secondary intention is to allow for new ideas (units/rules) come in as optional possibilities if they are worth to.
And all this corrections/redefinitions/new-units-and-rules of course are going to be decided by the (few) members who vote on the polls.

What I'm really against is just powering up armies because they look more cool or the GW fluff says they got their really-impressive-new-weapon/vehicle which overrates all of the same type. This is the same as a car, the more you run the most difficulty in retaining control. And experience tells me that unstability in game systems is quicly reached.

And please, don't get offended, I've never thought of offending you, I meant that I see that in the last two weeks have appeared a lot of rules suspicious of cheese effects, and I thought I should tell so.

Albert
Received on Fri Jun 14 2002 - 12:40:32 UTC