Re: [Epic] Net Epic

From: Tony Christney <acc_at_...>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:56:50 -0800

>At 03:04 PM 26/2/97 +0000, you wrote:
>>> My two cents would be about the lack of "we" that seems to be going into
>>> this whole thing, but if I am the only one with a problem, then I guess it
>>> must be just me...
>>>
>>> Agro
>>>
>>I'm not sure what you mean by this since I take extra care to always use
>>"we"(other than just saying me) and the reason of doing this proyect in
>>the first place is that everyone states their opinions, but of course
>>one opinion will always have more backers than others, my job is only to
>>present what the majority wants, my personal opinion is secondary and
>>will remain so.
>>
>>Peter

>Below is the post I snipped to illustrate my concern. It seems that you
>weren't very careful with the I/we thing here...
>
I would say the exact opposite, that he was very careful about the I/we thing...
[see below]

>>
>various titan costs snipped
>>
>>Comment: I will try to bring back the old AT rules on this one, it was
>>truely fearsome as it destroyed anything without shields without save
>>and shield targets were imune. If caught without shield-ouch! Bye
>>Titan! I'll tone it down somewhat but it will be still pretty powerful
>>and thus the cost. I post the full rules later.
>
> I will try...
>^^^
> I'll tone it down...
>^^^^^^

The "I will try" seems to mean that any decision is pending majority agreement.
I do think that Peter should have costed the weapon according to the
TL/Renegades
description though.

>
>>
>Orky costs snipped
>>I think the gargant has traditionally been harder to destroy than a
>
> I think...
>^^^

"I think" is much more appropriate than "we think" here, don't you?

>>warlord so the hull costs more the weapon though are less expensive on
>>average.
>>As for the Mega Gargant and the Mekboy gargant they come pretty much
>>with the same weapons so I left them alone with their present cost.
>
>
>so I left them...
> ^^^

But WE can change them!
   ^^^^
>
>>
>>Tyranids need such a overhaul that we'll probably redo the whole army!
>>
>>Well, we will combine or price discussion with the weapons description,
>>so nows the time to put in your two cents about what the weapon does to
>>bring it in equality with its values.
>>
>>United we stand!
>>Peter
>>
>
>
>Now, you SAY that your opinion is always secondary, but that isn't the
>feeling I get. (Now that's just my "feeling" but I usually trust my
>"feelings"!) From your position as the one who poses the topics for
>discussion and also final arbiter it would be pretty easy to skew things to
>your personal viewpoint and it looks to me like this IS happening.
>
>(Check your comment about Tyranids above - it looks pretty much like YOUR
>opinion to me.
>I know that there have been a lot of complaints about the tryanids - hence
>YOUR opinion on this issue IS shared by many others - but this is just an
>example of what has been disturbing me for some time...)
>
>As I have said, I _could_ be wrong (I reckon that I have been before...) but
>it seems like at least a few others have a similar problem, so I don't know...
>
>Incidentally, this IS intended as "constructive criticism" so please take it
>in the spirit in which it was intended.
>
>Agro

I don't think that your criticism is entirely warranted. Of course the NETEpic
discussion is open to _all_ to give their opinions. When I say all, I mean that
Peter is included as well as the rest of us. The Titan points cost post was by
no means the final word on the subject. I do feel that with the Tremor cannon
Peter should have costed the weapon according to the rules in TL, with the AT
rules and costs as a separate post. However, I think that that comment was
originally in some private email between the two of us, and got left in by
accident(?).

Personally, I see no problems with Peter voicing his opinion. It seems that by
using "I" these cases are clearly separate from anything that he is trying to
pass off as part of NETEpic. I definately don't think that he is trying to mold
NETEpic in his own image.

Tony Christney
acc_at_...
Received on Thu Feb 27 1997 - 23:56:50 UTC