Re: [NetEpic ML] NetEpic Future

From: pariahpress <pariahpress_at_...>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 01:40:51 -0000

--- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com, "cibernyam" <cibernyam_at_h...> wrote:

> 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.

  I'm not suggesting doing away with the army cards as they currently
exist. I have four armies (including the unlucky Squats) and they
are all organized along the lines of the Space Marine and Titan
Legions army cards. I wouldn't shoot my army in the foot that way!
  I merely suggest that we add more army cards to make it financially
feasible for people collecting Citadel's current range of Epic models
to field them in the game. This is especially important for newer
players who missed out on the Golden Age of Space Marine when we had
plastic Land Raiders and Titans and such.
  As far as fluff and balance go, It seems to me that fluff has
frequently been invented as a response to manufacturing and sales
limitations. The Horus Heresy is a great example. GW only had
enough money for one Titan model, so they created a scenario where it
was believable that Imperial Titans would be fighting one another.
Balance is trickier, but the folks at NetEpic have been creating new
units for some time now, and I am confident that this problem can be
overcome if sufficient brains and effort are applied to it.
  The current packages reflect the latest fluff. Deathstrikes are
becoming increasingly rare on the battlefield. The Imperial Guard
uses Chimeras, etc. The fluff is evolving, and I think that there is
room in NetEpic for people who prefer the newer fluff to the Rogue
Trader fluff that forms the foundation of NetEpic. A foundation of
fluff... what a terrible metaphor!

>
> > 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.

  Yes, the arms race should be avoided. New units shouldn't be more
powerful, just interesting and fun to play with. Without GW's profit
margins to worry about, we lack any motivation to encourage an arms
race. I doubt this will be a problem for NetEpic (though we must
always be on guard). I'm curious about what a supagun would do in
NetEpic!


>
> 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.
>
> 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.

  I'm not too worked up about GW's prices, personally. I enjoy their
products, but they fall into the category of "discretionary
spending," so if they raise the prices, I just buy less. It's not
like I don't have enough unpainted miniatures already to keep me busy
till doomsday.
  With the discontinuation of the archive service, however, it may be
important to maintain a database of proxy miniatures for units that
have been discontinued. I've had very little luck finding some of the
new NetEpic Squat minis that were from manufacturers other than GW.

  I guess that part of my argument in favor of encouraging people to
by Citadel minis was to lessen the likelyhood of GW taking legal
action against NetEpic at some point in the future. If we're helping
them out with sales, they'll be unlikely to mess with us, but if we
start advertising for their competitors, they may suddenly become
possessive of their intellectual property (i. e., their ruleset and
trademarked names).

   -Ethan
Received on Fri Sep 03 2004 - 01:40:51 UTC