Hi!
<moderator mode on>
Regarding copyright, you can choose to get inspiration from any GW new
or old, but we MUST re-phrase them in our own words, you CANNOT use them
verbatim because that makes GW all pissy. So while we certainly have
rules that are unchanged from the original GW books we cannot copy/paste
them to netepic.
As far as fluff and background they MUST be written from scratch,
otherwise those nice fellows with suits and briefcases from GW will pay
you a visit.
Finally keep it civil guys, no need to argue.
<moderator mode off>
Antichrist, the simple truth of revisions changes and such is that maybe
something in the neighborhood of 18 people or so are those who give us
the majority of input and participate on votes, that much is clear from
our polls history. The immense majority are content to trust that small
group to steer netepic in the right direction. It's somewhat flattering
if you think of it, it's a great deal of trust placed in those of us
that constantly work on netepic. We can only strive to be worthy.
Having said this not everything that is included or excluded from
netepic epic is done by majority vote. For example, the units in the
squat book like the ironhammer and other unique squat vehicles were
voted in as core around second or third edition netepic, I felt that
they needed more testing and left them as optional, I explained my
reasons and they were left as optional until a later revision. The point
is while I want the maximum discussion and input; I do on occasions have
to "step in" to insure the rules make sense and don't get too "weird". I
do this sparingly (very sparingly infact), but it is done. Remember that
on some points there will be NO agreement, that's okay, but a decision
regarding what the direction the rules will take still needs to be made
in some cases so that's why certain points get "edited in" by myself or
the editor (in this case Jar). If such an addition causes major grief
then it is revisited and examined, but remember if one person spots such
a thing and doesn't like it, but no one else is bothered by it then I
have to assume it's not a major issue and thus it remains unchanged.
This doesn't mean anyone's particular vision has precedence, but a
revision can't be successfully completed (or even done) by dissecting
every point. A poll or determination along these lines is only necessary
when two or more groups of members are at odds on an issue, to reach
consensus. But when one group has one opinion and the dissent is one
member then I cannot justify polling. Mind you its not to mean that that
sole dissenting voice is to be ignored, in fact in the past we have had
such voices who have swayed all others to its side making a good case in
support of that members views. That is good and the purpose of the list.
But sometimes difference of opinion stems from a persons "taste" or
personal preference and in that case there is no amount of polling that
will suffice. That's were I need to make a call.
Also of note that I only use polls when an obvious difference of opinion
exists, if something is thrown out there and no one comments then I have
to consider that an endorsement, because I have no other way to know.
Rules issues where little or no dissent is expressed are not polled.
In addition, some members have the time and inclination to read the
draft posted by Jar and others, but most don't, that's okay, members can
decide how much or little to participate, but obviously those who do
have a stronger say on what gets done. Sometimes that means a particular
view gets passed by one vote. That doesn't mean that is the best
solution, its just a solution. It's not even all that official since
gamers being gamers will use whatever they think best. But since we
cannot please everyone something has to be written down and it may not
be what you or I want. In fact there are things I personally don't like,
but you win some you lose some.
I have no problem with the chaos book, I have seen no massive dissent
nor do the polls show sizeable detractions to it. Is it a ringing
endorsement? No. But I can only gauge the opinions of those post, as of
yet, I cannot read minds.
SO, breath, calm down, discuss, but please unless any given point can
generate sufficient opinions against it (and if we need a definition
anything with 2 or more members against it is sufficient), no polls will
be generated. Netepic is a collaborative effort, but it cannot be done
by committee.
I thought important to go into this because netepic is more than 6 years
old and there are many people who have been with us for a while but not
the beginning, so they need to know what has transpired to understand
how things works.
As always input on this subject as any other is always welcome.
Primarch
-----Original Message-----
From: AntiChrist [mailto:seimejote_at_...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 5:32 PM
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: Tyranid revison
--- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com, Jarreas Underwood <jarreas_at_m...>
wrote:
> >> much better descriptions (not copied from GW)
> >
> >Meaning of these words?
>
> A lot of the unit descriptions I put in with are off the web or
from the old GW rulebooks. A lot of the descriptions in your material
are from the GW website. If someone's willing to make up new (and
uncopywrited) fluff, I'll put in the effort of making the rules
represent the fluff. Until then I choose to make things, well perhaps
not simple, but at least internally consistant.
+AC+ Curious... a lot of descriptions I put in my codici are taken
from White Dwarfs bought when Space Marines was sold... and after
this Epic. Descriptions for new units are taken from the GW website
because they didn't exist at the time. _YOU_'ll put the effort of
making the rules for the fluff? You haven't to make anything. The
mailing list have to make the rules, not you. Ah... my material is
copyrighted? I was thinking that _all_ we are using it's
copyrighted... but maybe it's just me.
When I start all this revision (seems long time ago), one thing I
thought was that I can't do what I want, or impose my will to the
list. We all have to work together to make this new version work
well. I proposed things, voted polls, debated rules and changed
things to my codici that might be 'politically incorrect' upon
suggestion from you.
Your last 10-15 posts suggest the exact opposite.
> >Write me a note when you choose another thing (a new rule, a new
unit...), so I can update the "official" rules on my hard disk...
they seem to never be the same of the ones in the files section.
>
> If you're referring to the effect of CC weapons, let's take a look:
+AC+ No, I'm referring to the fact that there are things in the Core
Rules never discussed, and I haven't missed a single e-mail from this
list since the revision started.
> Chain Fist: +D6 CAF
> Combat Head: +3 CAF
> Power Saw: + D6 CAF
> Chaos Tail: +2 CAF
> Doom Fist: +D6 CAF
> Hellblade: +3 CAF
> Ripper Tentacles: -D6 to opponent CAF
>
> I chose to standardize. The effect is the same so I didn't make a
poll and wait two weeks on a trivial item. Any more questions?
> -Yar
+AC+ Yes: when you plan to substitute the word "I" with the
word "We"? I already have a boss in real life, don't need another
one. Tyranid codex will not be another Chaos codex.
Besides this... Chain Fist, Combat Head, Power Saw ecc. ecc. are
all "active" weapons, so add to the wielding Titan's CAF. Ripper
Tentacled otherwise don't add anything, since they only prevent the
other Titan movements or use of a close combat weapon. A shield makes
you do more damage?
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/
Received on Wed May 14 2003 - 00:17:08 UTC