Re: [Epic] Re: NetEpic

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:22:00 +0100 (MET)

At 01:55 PM 10/2/98 -0500, you wrote:
>J. Michael Looney wrote:
>>
>> Scott Shupe wrote:
>> >
>> > Los wrote:
>> > >
>> > > So are we not supposed to discuss netepic here?
>> >
>> > Feel free to. It's a version of Epic, after all (even if
>> > it's not sanctioned by GW). Just make sure you it's clear that
>> > you're talking about it and not SM/TL (or E40k).
>> >
>>
>> There was an official ruling that Net Epic was off topic here, when it
>> was in the early design stages. This, BTW, is why some members of the
>> Net Epic design group have a problem with this mailing list.
>
>The problem wasn't that NetEpic was being discussed here. It was that
>it
>was being designed here. Some of us would have been interested in the
>status, or in how rule difference might have made situations turn out
>differently, or what regular NetEpic players liked about their rules.
>But we didn't want to have the design discussion on the net. It was a
>large amount of traffic.
>
>At least, that's the way I remember it.
>
>andy


Yeah, that's about how I remember it too. When it ceased to be "Epic" and
became something only loosely asociated with "Epic" that it was deemed "off
topic".
(Of course this applies even more to the E40K heresy, but there are so many
heretics on the list that the list has been hijacked... ;-)

(You must have suspected I was gonna say that...)

Agro



>
>--
>Andy Skinner
>askinner_at_...
>
>
Received on Wed Feb 11 1998 - 09:22:00 UTC