Re: [NetEpic ML] Comments over 5.0 rulebook

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:09:01 -0400

Hi!

Stephane Montabert wrote:

>I also agree completely. The only issue there, extending to every
>optional rule I guess, is: should they be crammed within core rules
>or moved in a specific chapter? But this question is certainly more
>related to editing and layout rather than to the rule itself.
>
>Spreading optional rules in their relative chapters allows each
>chapter to cover its topic extensively. On the other hand, the
>reading can become annoying if someone decides not to use them - as
>they are optional by definition. Moving all optional rules in a
>dedicated part allow a better understanding of core rules, but
>requires to read back and forth the related chapter if someone uses
>some of them and if they intermingled with core rules.
>
>Both methods have their good and bad points ; the former favors the
>experienced gamer at the expense of the beginner, the latter does the
>opposite. That's why I am naturally inclined towards the second
>option. Being clear to new players is IMHO of fundamental
>importance ; being useful to experienced ones is secondary, since
>they are ready to make little efforts.
>
There has been some debate on this point between Jar and I through the
months the revision has gone through, I'm not sure what was ultimately
decided, but I think making it easier for newbies is important so
perhaps the current form will stay.

>That's something I don't understand. Battlegroups DO exist in Space
>Marine, at least for Ork Gargants and Tyranids Bio-Titans, not sure
>about other races. I'm quite sure Chaos and Squat have nothing in
>this regard. If I remember correctly Eldar and IG battle groups have
>been introduced with Titan legions ?
>
>I though NetEpic would not make official units optionals, although I
>agree it may be necessary for balance reasons (Ordinatus, anyone?).
>
>If the purpose is to give Battlegroups to every race (with perhaps
>the exception of Chaos and Squats) as an optional rule, then the rule
>should be optional for EXTRA availability of battle group, ie. for
>races that did not normally had access to them - Eldars, IG.
>
>In short, I think not all races should be made equal according to
>Titan battle groups and their "optional" keyword. But I'm open to
>discussion.
>
The background of discussions for battlegroups dates all the way back to
version 1.0. The original GW rules for battlegroups were deemed (and
still are) to be CHEESY. You pay for 2 titans and get a third free. The
paultry restriction of "coherency" for titans in a battlegroup doesn't
make up for one free titan. Due to this perception battlegroups were
"ommited" in the original Net Epic version. Since then they have
remained somewhat unpopular and no rules variant has been overwhelmingly
accepted. Thus, accordingly, we'll include and "option" to use
battlegroups, but they have not had enough support over the years to be
a core rule. In fact, some would argue for it not even being optional......

>Well, thanks a lot for your welcoming reply. Since my mail raised
>problems and critics, I did not want to hurt anyone's feelings nor
>their work over the years. NetEpic has gone through many revisions
>and there is more work involved in than I could imagine or do myself.
>
>Hence, I see it with respect and take care not to appear arrogant in
>telling everything is not perfect - in my humble gamer's point of
>view.
>
>I decided to involve in 6mm games BECAUSE of NetEpic, and bough my
>first Epic models circa 2002 through e-Bay. I find this ruleset
>superior to GW publications in nearly every aspect, and that's why I
>want this gaming environment to stay alive and kickin'.
>
>I have plently of Epic ressources, ideas, galleries to build, I've
>proposed to bring pictures online, etc. but as usual time is lacking.
>A lot of NetEpic homework to do, but I'll do it for sure. Is there
>any deadline for 5.0 rulebook revisions ?
>
Thank you for the kind words and support!

There is no deadline for 5.0. When it gets done and people are happy
with it, it will be released.

Only GW needs deadlines and release schedules.... ;-)

Peter
Received on Tue Feb 10 2004 - 22:09:01 UTC