Hi!
I would agree if anyone has a set of rules to address this send them to
me for inclusion as optional rules.
I agree with Ed that GW has a poor track record when it comes to new
rule inclusion and explanation. They almost never clarify anything. Why
do think they keep moving to increasingly simpler mechanics in their
games? To avoid answering question. From a game design standpoint they
are pretty much lazy. Since we can't second guess them, we have to make
up our own minds using what's already in front of us as a template and
try to be consistent. I admit I'm not much for 40k, nor am I up to date
on what units can do in that game. Then again I am not particularly
inclined to make the net epic rules fit the 40k perspective. I leave
that for others with more experience in that than I.
My recommendation to most players is that when you confront a problem in
the rules, the answer is usually similar to how the most similar unit to
the unit in question handles it. If your interpretation brings an
entirely new mechanic to the game, then its a good bet that not the
right one. Of course nothing keeps you from discussing it on the list
and making a case for it to be changed.
Heck, that's what net epic is all about, change. If you got something to
say or new rules, I'm sure all on the group will want to hear it. After
all some members have come up with that special something that has
turned the rules around.
Peter
Hellreich wrote:
> Sal, wow thems some powerful words. Now before you hit the reply, this
> is not a flame attack just talking here.
>
>
>
> Well for you and I hate to sound like the (I use to go to every Con
> and play SM touries until the game dropped. Plus play countless other
> games) but , I use to go to every Con and play SM touries until the
> game dropped. Plus play countless other games. As for your not being
> seen rule the models even back then by GW guys where placed on the
> board, it was explained as thermo scanners and such knew where they
> were but because of their nature they were unstoppable by the human
> eye. Now we here at this group are far from the blind eye in fact
> most of the time I get into any new board game that comes out. Fact
> is I can't stand GW anymore, the way they leave count less hours of
> arguments for players to do, for the simple fact of not directly
> wording things. Only to release the erratta in some White Dork mag, 5
> months later. Now be it may, this quite large group, just check the
> member list, have not see a problem with these type units being place
> on the board. And it has been that way since the beginning, for the
> Tyraind did not come out till almost the untimely death of SM 2nd ed.
> And good old GW poor ways, they put a unit in that can not be seen,
> but fail to update the rules to allow such units. But if you would
> like and have the time, make up such rules and post them. I'm sure
> others as I, would love to have this new addition to the current
> rules. Now I have found this site on the web
> http://members.aol.com/wmowen/hms.htm he has a set of rule for hidden
>
Received on Sun Dec 17 2000 - 15:57:36 UTC