From: David Dunham (ddunham@radiomail.net)
Date: Thu 20 Jan 1994 - 08:17:08 EET
>> > 5) The unified hit table is fine with me, but everyone else I
>> >know hates it.
>>
>> Because it's unified, or because it's new?
>
> I liked it when it was proposed on the list, but my GM (a very long
>time player with a copy of RQ1) rejected it, because he'd memorized
>the old ones. I suspect a lot of long time players may have the same
>reaction
I once upon a time proposed a separate missile hit location chart, and was
> A question for the authors of RQ4: given the deliberately limited
I came in late, but I saw the email address for the list written on a big
David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation
pleased that it made it into RQ3. However, now I find it's just another
complication, and prefer having a single chart. I don't know that the RQ4
chart is so much better than the RQ1/2 chart that it's worth switching.
>distribution of the new draft, do you want it dissected on this list?
piece of paper at the RQ4 seminar.
Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net
"I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want."
"What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:31:24 EEST