Re: [NetEpic ML] NetEpic Future

From: pariahpress <pariahpress_at_...>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:01:32 -0000

--- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com, "EPICentre Webmaster" <gambit_at_n...>
wrote:
> [EPICentre Webmaster] I can see your point, there is little
promotion,
> for one reason we don't want to clash swords with Games Workshop,
at the
> moment we are in a friendly co-existance. We start to treat NetEPIC
like
> a business and that friendliness ends. I am all up for promotion of
the
> system, and have worked with several websites to boost exposure. Any
> further suggestions are welcome.

  It seems to me that the best way to avoid "clashing" with GW is to
encourage a symbiotic relationship with them. GW has made it clear
by giving away its own rules for free that they intend to make all of
their Epic profits from miniatures sales. If the NetEpic folks were
to attempt to coodinate their efforts with GW's miniatures releases,
they would make an asset of themselves; essentially turn themselves
into free advertising for Citadel miniatures.
  A few suggestions along those lines:
  Make new army cards which are more compatable with how the minis
are packaged these days. I. E. units of two (2) Deathstrikes, etc.
  Make an effort to release trial rules for new miniatures in a
timely fashion with their release. While many here have the sort
of "can-do" attitude which allows them to come up with rules on the
spot, others have a more "end user" approach and merely wish to play
the game.
  By encouraging people to buy the new miniatures we not only make
ourselves (I count myself among your number based on my single
contribution to the group, the Whiteshields rules) useful to GW, but
by encouraging people to buy Epic miniatures, we help to ensure that
GW will continue to produce them, surely important for NetEpic's long-
term health.
  Heck, I read a post by Jervis in the Epic Armageddon forums
endorsing NetEpic.
  I hope this doesn't come off as being excessively pro-GW or
anything; I understand that there is a certain anarchic spirit
involved here. Just a suggestion on my part, and one that I perhaps
should back up with more contributions of my own.
Received on Mon Aug 30 2004 - 00:01:32 UTC