RE: [NetEpic ML] More Design Issues

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:40:22 -0400

Hi!

-----Original Message-----
From: deaconblue3_at_... [mailto:deaconblue3@...]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 2:01 PM
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NetEpic ML] More Design Issues


I just can't seem to stop on this...8P

I think we have a conceptual problem on the list (and in Epic in
general,
not limited to NetEpic). The issue is fairly significant, as it colors
all of our perceptions about the mechanics and army lists. It is namely
scale. What exactly is the scale for NetEpic? Is it a 1:1 ratio for
the
models? Is it 5:1? Or is it something else entirely? Without a firm
concept behind the scale, we leave ourselves open to debates about what
exactly 4000 pts constitutes in terms of individual totals, not number
of
models. I can see that some of us labor under the concept of 1:1, while
others are presuming a ratio of 5:1 or greater. FWIW, I believe that a
5:1 ratio is best, as extrapolated out, this would give "correct"
numbers
for the various company crads, and support cards. Otherwise, we're
severely limiting all but the most experienced (and wealthiest) players
from fielding "epic scale armies."

>>>This is definitely a sticky issue. I have purposefully avoided it for
years because there is no easy answer to this. I agree with you in
theory, but have been around the "epic" block enough to know it may not
be the opinion of many. It will be interesting to see what people say
regarding this, perhaps some consensus may be reached.

Secondly, we're still at odds over what is "canon" and what is not.
We're starting to give GreyTalkers a run for their money on this issue.
Tom, I think we should hold off a bit on voting for fluff issues, such
as
the time line, untill more things are hashed out on that issue.

In general, I think that by trying to include everything in the core
rules, we are creating an over burdened, weak set of rules, that
actually
detracts from the intended goal, and makes things unnecessarily
complicated for players. I'm not saying we shouldn't have all those
different army lists, just that they shouldn't be included in the core
rules. The KISS principle needs to be applied and maintained for
maximum
success.

We need to focus a bit on some core concepts, like scale and fluff, so
that the army lists flow naturally from that. Else we end up creating
some ridiculous things that go well beyond the scope of what the rules
are intended to represent, and mechanics can handle.

>>>Very sound advice, which I think we should settle soon by accepting a
timeline for net epic and sticking to it design wise. Oh, by the way,
any new added units or lists are strictly optional. The only "core"
additions will be the divisions (if any) to the lists. All else added is
optional, not core.

Peter
Received on Sat Nov 23 2002 - 01:40:22 UTC