Re: Re: [FT] Alternate Tuffleyverse interpretations (Long?) was Re: [GZG] [FT] NAC campaign setup
From: Doug Evans <devans@n...>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:07:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Re: [FT] Alternate Tuffleyverse interpretations (Long?) was Re: [GZG] [FT] NAC campaign setup
The other you wrote on 04/14/2006 12:46:27 PM:
> You said:
> >> >Not to mention licensed, private prospectors and theirsuppliers
> And then:
> >you saying OU couldn't have such a licensing structure?
> OU could have a licensing structure but AE certainly does
> not. So when you say that there could be "licensed private
> prospectors", just bear in mind that you are at least as
> likely to run into unlicensed prospectors. Or at least
> people who will claim, under some circumstances, to be prospectors.
Fair enough, though it's easy enough to suggest they'd be claiming to be
licensed. There'd follow the question of how valid those documents are,
> >AE is an umbrella to OU? I sure have missed much.
> :-) Nobody can prove that. And no one can prove that the
> OU is an umbrella to the AE, either.
> To be at least slightly serious, I would say that the AE
> could very well be part of the ORC--if so, the AE ought to
> go on the Canon Map.
As the ORC ships are under the Full Thrust section of the catalog, I'd
certainly agree the Outrim should be on the canon map, and you could
to any spot and say 'that's the AE', but, as for putting the name on the
map... *ahem* *whistle*
Gzg-l mailing list