Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...> wrote:
WOW peter
thats been my point in all changes if it changes the game mechanics and or how a unit works or "feels" ( wellll mayby your trying to put to much into it) step back and look at it
becouse as a gamer I want a tank for 2 points each with 1+ save on 2D6, 5 attacks that hit on 2+ , -6 mod, movement of 50cm and I m the only person who can use them LOL LOL
Also the reason I ll only play battle tech with stock mechs
i!
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 beginnin
g, 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
eGroups Sponsor
Paid Net2phone Advertisement - Click Here!
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
RuneSmith Studio "we bring the art to war"
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
Received on Sun Dec 17 2000 - 18:15:46 UTC