Hi!
I honestly dont see most of them making it, mainly because playtest is
slow, heck it took almost 2 years to mold the Slann! Also a 2/3
majority is hard to pull off, just look at the poll history. Not too
many adopted units, mostly rules.
I'm much more liberal with small rules additions than with units.
Rules tend to be tested every time you play, units are only tested
when you play one army, far less exposure.
What I will do some time from now is put all these units in a
"optional book", so people may customize their games, but as for
making them core, mostly likely not. I took out a lot of stuff from
the last revision and made it optional, flier rules, a whole host of
units, heck even those cool squat tanks, which have almost 3 years of
testing, I left as optional.
Units bring much contention to gamers circles, even more so than
rules, because units belong to a certain army and people are
passionate about what people field in their armies. In short any unit
that is going to be adopted, a whole lost of playtesting by DIFFERENT
groups needs to be presented and win a 2/3 majority vote, not so easy
when you think about it.
So have fun with your friends creations, you'll surely discard more
than you keep and they will be optional for quite a few years still,
before they can be considered to be "core".
Peter
--- In netepic_at_y..., Trygve Bj�rnstad <trygve_at_n...> wrote:
> I fully agree to what you're saying, but many an optional unit will
become a
> core unit sooner or later. I'm just worried that all our armies will
be too
> similar, thus requiring no special tactics...
>
> Trygve
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: primarch_at_b... [mailto:primarch_at_b...]
> > Sent: 12. juni 2001 14:38
> > 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
> >
> > --- In netepic_at_y..., "P.J.T" <paul.j.t_at_b...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > My main concern with introducing these suggested units is that
> > we're
> > > > basically trying to give all armies a little bit of
everything.
> > This will
> > > > only result in all armies being identical apart from the
fluff. Is
> > that
> > > what
> > > > we want?
> > > >
> > > > Trygve
> > >
> > > *Disengage cloaking device..*
> > >
> > > Sounds like Epic 40K to me.........bad move.......
> > >
> > > *engage cloak*
> > >
> > > Paul "TuffSkull" T.
> > > http://tuffnett.com - TuffNett Productions Ltd.
> > > http://epic40k.com - If its Epic, Its there!
> > > http://welcome.to/weird_world - Weird World Wargaming.
> >
> >
> > 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 - 13:54:33 UTC