Sci said:
Lots of people are complaining about the delays. But don't forget the oldest rule in show business (save "The show must go on"):
Always leave 'em wanting more.
Sci said:
Lots of people are complaining about the delays. But don't forget the oldest rule in show business (save "The show must go on"):
Always leave 'em wanting more.
Baerbel Haddrell said:
I know, I am sounding like a broken record but not celebrating NF`s 10th anniversary, which is also the anniversary of the first book only Star Trek series is very disappointing. On top of that this is the first year without a new NF book.
No it isn't, on two levels. 1) There was a new NF novel in Obsidian Alliances. 2) You've forgotten 2002, when there was no new NF material whatsoever.On top of that this is the first year without a new NF book.
No NF in 2002 (+5), no (branded as such) NF in 2007 (+10)... am I sensing a theme here?KRAD said:
You've forgotten 2002, when there was no new NF material whatsoever.![]()
ATimson said:
I was thinking more in terms of S&S possibly not wanting to release two books in the same series too close together.![]()
Actually, it was the only MU story to touch our universe. Remember, there was the part at the end where McHenry showed M'k'n'zy our universe's Mac on the Excaliber.Who_Trek said:
I thought about that too, KRAD, but I don't really count that as a NF novel. The whole thing took place in an alternative universe that didn't touch the "real" one at all.
Pfffft... facts...KRAD said:
No it isn't, on two levels. 1) There was a new NF novel in Obsidian Alliances. 2) You've forgotten 2002, when there was no new NF material whatsoever.On top of that this is the first year without a new NF book.![]()
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.