Re: [NetEpic ML] NetEpic Future

From: douglas woodcock <douglas_woodcock_at_...>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:20:58 +0100 (BST)

Lurk mode off:
 
A lot of what I have seen sounds good but while there may be resistance its also a lot to do with free time as well. I know that doing the incoming mag takes up a lot of time and that contirbutions are based on whether people have time or can even be bothered to submit things. Hence the reason why issue 19 is late, I need to write something myself to help out. I am not sure what the deal is with GW because I joined later however I do know that it is hard to keep everybody happy and have enough time for yourself. I am not sure about the not wanting to change thing as the rules and debates seemed quite flexible within the original rules set out... at least thats what I thought, I could be wrong. Obviously things could be made better for Netepic but I think personally that help would be needed to achieve what is being asked so that it doesnt fall to the few.
Concerning promotion; I find that a lot of people have been logging on to the Netepic site, looking at the download figures for rule sets and the incoming download figures show that there is more of a following for netepic than what is shown by the member count within this yahoo group, unfortunately they suffer from a little shyness to send something in ;)
I am up for helping, time permitting of course and maybe using articles in the incoming magazine might bring it more into focus because people want to read the issues. Maybe a few get togethers to have a few battle reports for publishing or new rule submissions could also be put in which is happening I think for E:A stuff at the moment.
 
Thats my 2 cents
 
Doug

Jarreas Underwood <jarreas_at_...> wrote:
>Make new army cards which are more compatable with how the minis
>are packaged these days. I. E. units of two (2) Deathstrikes, etc.

I like this suggestion, but I have a feeling there'd be massive resistance to it. NetEpic has a massive amount of institutional inertia (we don't like change) and this would also go against the age-old GW tradition of selling poorly-numbered models (sell in twos, field in threes sort of thing). Yes, it'd make sense but I don't think we can get enough support. What do other folks think? I'm quite willing to edit the army lists and I'm pretty sure Peter wouldn't mind changing the card he's making. So how much resistance would we encounter? Opinions?
-Yar



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
\~
|~ . o o . :;: () -0- o o .
|~ ^
/~ |
You are here. Wouldn't you rather be out there? -->
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=



To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links






                
---------------------------------
 ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
Received on Mon Aug 30 2004 - 19:20:58 UTC