Hi!
Hehe, like I told Eivind, no worries.
While nothing is written in stone, core rule adaptations require the
following:
1. Playtesting, members should bring thier actual game experience with
the rules and discuss pros and cons
2. Once pros and cons are discussed, the usual 2/3 vote ensues.
It's getting pretty rare now to have major rules changes as core
"official" rules.
As for optional rules, my approach as you have seen in the newer edits
of the rules is to incluse a lot of optional rules. I have no rules for
these other than someone taking the time to make them. My desire this
time around is to keep the rules as simple as possible and have many
optional rules for players to select and discard to taste.
While we haven't used the phrase "optional" in these discussion, don't
worry, assume it is optional until you see the polls in the mail.
Peter
nils.saugen_at_... wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I agree completely! In our gaming group we're not going to include
> this change anyway, so for us this discussion is of little value.
> However, I strongly recomend that you think this through one more time!
>
>
>
> This is a significant change in the game, and it must be put to the polls!
>
>
>
> Nils
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eivind Borgeteien [mailto:eivind.borgeteien_at_...]
> Sent: 10. januar 2001 14:14
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Another question
>
> Hi
>
> I strongly resent this change! It will have great impact on the
> game, especially on the armies with low moral score.
>
>
>
> I think this is a change that requires a poll and a 2/3 majority
> to be included in the core-rules. If it doesnt make it, let it be
> an optional rule.
>
>
>
> What does the rest of you think?
>
>
>
> Eivind
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From:Peter Ramos <mailto:primarch_at_...>
>
> To:netepic_at_egroups.com <mailto:netepic_at_egroups.com>
>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 1:54 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Another question
>
>
> Hi!
>
> This seems to be the prefered way of doing it. If there are no
> dissenters this is the one to apply: "broken units will check
> for morale in the end phase of every turn until the game ends.
> These units may be rallied normally. This check is in addition
> to any others they may suffer due to game effects in the turn".
>
> Peter
>
> sarah-warren wrote:
>
>> Myself and the guys use option 1 and it works quite well, more chances of
>> failing
>>
>> Warren
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: maxerdog_at_... <mailto:maxerdog_at_...> <maxerdog@...> <mailto:maxerdog@...>
>> To: netepic_at_egroups.com <mailto:netepic_at_egroups.com> <netepic_at_egroups.com> <mailto:netepic_at_egroups.com>
>> Date: 05 January 2001 11:57
>> Subject: [NetEpic ML] Another question
>>
>>
>>> Thanks for the reply to my previous question. My gaming partner and
>>> I are looking for a way to penalize units that have been broken but
>>> have passed their morale check. We do not like the way these units
>>> pass one morale check and then are immune to causalties for the rest
>>> of the game. Our two ideas.
>>>
>>> 1. A morale check every turn a broken unit suffers causities.
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> 2. A morale check to give broken units orders.
>>>
>>> Is one of these viable options? Will it unbalance things to much for
>>> armies with poor morale?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com <mailto:netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com>
>>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com <mailto:netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>
> eGroups Sponsor
> [Click here for Business information]
> Click here for Business information
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=155181.1283799.2880018.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700059081:N/A=527834/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;2178697;5122774;t?http://www.business.com/>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Received on Wed Jan 10 2001 - 14:48:05 UTC