Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: New file uploaded to netepic

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:08:53 -0500

Hi!

Huh?!

First the well put refers to his statement on "non invincible armies"
and other statements earlier in his e-mail, my comment is listed at the
end as usual as summary not as sole comment on the last paragraph. I
think you know me well enough Luca (I hope) that I would never call any
member on this list a whiner or other such epithet.

I don't know why there has been so much strong sentiment lately (not
just from you but others too), but please take it easy. I know we have
different opinions which I always try to respect and hear. Please never
assume that you are being insulted, at least from me, since I take great
pains to avoid such things and I try to make all members adhere to that.
I know it is difficult to assess aggression via e-mail since we don't
have any visual cues. But at least my rule is to assume non-aggression
until it is blatantly obvious to the contrary.

Please keep on expressing your points, just don't be too harsh on
differening opinions. We all mean it in a good way.

Peter

Luca Lettieri wrote:

>>> No offense intended here, but I see most of the arguments against
>>> something as whining over an inability to defeat certain armies
>>> (or players). Changing the rules so you can win on a regular
>>> basis is much more cheezy than using what's in the army lists
>>> IMO. Not that I am saying that is the case, I don't know for
>>> sure, but that is how it appears at times. OK, I think I've run
>>> my corse for now....
>>
>
>
>> Well put. We all come from different backgrounds and have a
>> slightly different take on how to play the game. But as I mentioned
>> before we tend to narrow our perceptions of the game to our
>> experience within one gaming group.
>
>
> Well, thanks to both of you for calling me a whiner but I'm not. And
> my playing skills are just fine, thank you very much. Oh and
> saying "no offense intended but you're an idiot" IS offensive, you
> know.
>
> I could reply with how allowing both imperial and chaos armies to
> field everything levels the playing field but has the added undesired
> effect of making the armies identical, but since I'm just whining I
> think I'll pass up. Let me just state that if I have to field a chaos
> army that has the same units of an imperial army, moves like an
> imperial army, fights like an imperial army, FEELS like an imperial
> army, I could as well field an imperial army and be done with it.
>
> But I'm a whiner, so what do I know of the subtle nuances of boarding
> CSM companies on Thunderhawks while using suppressive fire from my
> traitor IG artillery companies? And of the big differences between
> this and imperial SM companies boarding Thunderhawks while loyal IG
> artillery companies pound the enemy...
>
>
> Luca
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>
>
Received on Thu Jan 18 2001 - 00:08:53 UTC