He He,
This is one of our joys aswell. However, at times we think we may be
bothering the group a bit to much, but I guess we all love to argue. I think
you'd be quite surpriced to see us play. We have many houserules and
interpitations that you'd probably find quite odd. We often have a 3rd party
present when we play, to study tactics and to help settle differences.
Anyway it all comes down to this, WE LOVE THE GAME!
Nils
-----Original Message-----
From: primarch_at_... [mailto:primarch@...]
Sent: 12. juni 2001 15:01
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] On the new squat units
Hi!
Hehe, I must admit that one of my great joys is watching our Nordic
friends (Rune,Eivind and crew)duke it out as far as getting good units
in for their respective armies. It reminds me of my "golden" age days
when I had a lot of people around and got a lot of games in. Lord
knows I used to argue far worse than they do as to what to use and how
to use it in a game.
Of course, as far as development goes, their group is one of our great
resources since they play constantly and consistently. In any event
they will let us know soon enough, how "balanced" a proposed optional
unit is.
Its just too bad they dont live closer to me, it must be a hoot to
game with them.
Peter
--- In netepic_at_y..., jyrki.saari_at_n... wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext primarch_at_b... [mailto:primarch_at_b...]
> > Sent: 12. June 2001 15:38
> > To: netepic_at_y...
> > Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] On the new squat units
> >
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > Ahem, this is where I repeat my old beaten mantra, "any units
created
> > from the conclusion of the revision of net epic (now version
> > 4.1)onwards are considered optional and should be sent to Tom for
> > inclusion in Incoming!
> >
> > Repeat- OPTIONAL. No unit will EVER become mainstream without the
> > usual vote and extensive playtesting.
> >
> > The presentation of of optional units should be considered a
> > adding to
> > the variety of selection. One must remeber that this list is
> > all a lot
> > of people have as far as new ideas and new units for thier armies.
> > Therefore it is good to add things in an optional manner.
> >
> > We all know that hardly anyone on this list plays net epic as is
and
> > there are many house rules and such. Just view these add-ons as
> > totally optional, thus requiring consent of the gaming group
> > involved. One man's "cheese" is another man's snack.
> >
> > I agree that one should NOT fill in the gaps of weakness a army
list
> > has as far as core units go, but one is curious to field "special"
> > units and optional ones permit players to tailor the game without
> > ramming an aura of officialty down a gaming groups throat.
> >
> > So let your creative urges loose ,its okay, it gives Incoming! mch
> > needed material, it gives us something to discuss, play with and
test
> > and the great thing is if you don't like it, just forget it-it's
> > OPTIONAL!
> >
> > Peter
> >
>
> Hear, hear! From what I have observed, next to none of the new units
are
> actually playtested, so their effects can only be guessed at. As
long as
> there is no extensive playtesting data available, it's too early to
condemn
> anything, even more so since they are optional. Being cynical, it
seems to
> me that people are most worried about their principal opponent
getting
> something nifty... ;-)
>
> Jyrki Saari
>
> -There is no such thing as free lunch because eating takes time and
time is
> money.
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Received on Tue Jun 12 2001 - 13:09:23 UTC