Hi. I feel thatNetEpic must reconfigures it's cards for the way Epic
miniatures are packaged. NetEpic should change with the times, it's
essential for future growth. The cards are the simplelist, most fun,
easiest way of choosing an army. That should never be given that up. But I
feel the cards should follow the Army force structure of SM2/TL rather the
new E:A lists system. As for new units just plug them into the old force
structure. It will require an updating of the cards but, the rule sturcture
and simplicity of NetEpic remains the same. The card system with
streamlined basic rules will attract people who don't want to be limited by
lists. Choices are a good thing.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephane Montabert" <kotrin_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 2:43 AM
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: NetEpic future
>
> > > 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.
>
> Hi, massive resistance speaking ;)
>
> I find that NetEpic is not only a set of rules for
> placing orders and handling close-combat, but also for
> army composition. I especially like it in its current
> form. Special Cards and Free cards can make it a bit
> abstract, but the company / detachment makes perfect
> sense and truly reflect the massive organization of an
> army fielded for a large engagement.
>
> Anyhow, we could allow more flexibility in army
> composition without breaking current rules. We could
> just allow under-strengh unit, but adjusting cost to
> the 5 or 10 nearest point, knowing that breaking the
> frame could only be a (light) disadvantage, but
> reflecting wears and tears of battered down fighters.
>
> For example, since a Deathstrike missile battery is
> made of 3 launchers for 200 points (if I remember
> correctly) we could say that each launcher is in fact
> worth 70 pts. So it would be 70 for one (break
> point:1), 140 for two (break point:1) and 200 for
> three (break point:2 and a 10 pts rebate for taking a
> full detachment).
> Or we could decide for 65 points each and saying that
> the additional unit needed to reach break point for a
> unit of three is well worth the 5 extra points.
>
> Such approach would allow greater flexibility in army
> composition while letting some reward for fielding
> complete units. But of course it would require a
> massive update of all army books.
>
> Waddayathink?
>
> Stephane
>
> =====
> .:: www.stephane.info ::.
> "It's better to enlarge the game than to restrict the players." -- Eric
Wujcik
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Aug 31 2004 - 17:15:25 UTC