----- Original Message -----
From: "pariahpress" <pariahpress_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] NetEpic Future
> --- 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.
Independence from GW is the first key to NetEpic success up to now IMHO. I
think that I speak for the majority f the members of this list if I say that
our main aim as NetEpic members is to have fun an enjoy playing a game of
6mm minis futuristic battles (someone may find more appropiate words to
express it). Games Workshop works with ONE aim: make money (from us). I
think we should carve this last sentence somewhere just that we don't
forget. Of course, it might happen that our aims clash (indeed, GW prices
clashed with me a lot of time ago) and that's why is so important to be able
to operate cmpletely free of GW. We cannot depend on changes caused by GW
economic needs because that simply doesn't have anything to do with the
game. There are other mini manufacturers (some of very good quality, some
cheaper and some cheaper and of very gd quality).
We know that.
GW knows that.
We know GW knows that.
GW knows we know that.
So that could be a clashing point but GW main target for selling minis
(kids) does not know that or does not have the possibility to acces these
other manufacturers. Thus, I would not care too much on these. We (Epic
community) are just a drop in the big swimming pool of GW clients. Our
adquisitions are not so important to annoy GW in case they lose us as
clients. IMHO their money comes mostly from WH and WH40k.
> 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.
No way, absolutely. Sorry if it sounds a bit rude. GW has mantained a policy
of changing the number of minis packaged depending on their commercial
interests many times in the lasts years. And this is going to happen again
in the future; I'm completely sure. We cannot be adapting continuously each
and every time GW decides to decrease the number of minis in a package to
increase the net benefit (or pack three blisters in a boxed package at four
times the prie of one blister). Army cards should be consistent with fluff
and balance, not with the minies-manufacturer seling strategy. Avoid
changing numbers is part of one very imortant politic in NetEpic as pointed
Peter some time ago. There is nothing more upsetting for a miniature
collector and wargamer than having useless minies in each revision of the
rules. Of course we could change the number of stands in a SM company (or
imperial tank company) but those that have those companies painted would
have to repaint them to suit the new organization. And that is really
upsetting. Not to say erasing old units (or entire armies like Squats!),
which indeed, is a common politic for GW.
> 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.
I think that's a very good idea, although GW does not bring out so many new
units but make new minis of older units or ven re-sell old minis at higher
prices. Much care should be taken, as always, to keep balance. Sorry if I
always stay with the same song, but balanced rules and units is the second
key of NetEpic's success. GW games to become (very) unbalanced pretty fast,
as the arms race increases with every new mini brought out.
> 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.
Personally, I have no interest in encouraging people to buy at GW.
Furthermore, I recommend buying from cheaper companies if possible. The
lesson of Epic 40k is still fresh in my memory about GW product support.
> 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.
>
Well, I confess that I'm quite against GW (what they did with the imperial
reaver titan has no name, sell the same mini three times more expensive. Do
they think we are stupid or what?), that's not big news anyway. But I like
to hear different opinions, thanks for yours :-) ; it's part of the anarchic
spirit that you pointed out and the third key of NetEpic success: a plural
creation coming from many different ways of thinking. I don't want to open
again the discussion about
is-GW-really-listening-to-gamers-or-is-just-a-marketing-politic again, just
poit out again that NetEpic is really from and for gamers, without expecting
any kind of (economic) profit or benefit. And that does a lot for plurality.
Received on Tue Aug 31 2004 - 17:58:15 UTC