Fifth, If the primarchs were at about the same level as greater daemons I
> can't see a problem. After all, a Chaos player can have multiple of those
> while I can't see there ever being more than one primarch present at any
> single battle.
--------> Chaos is the hardest army to beat, so I definately see a problem there! The deamon army is constructed around the greater deamons with mostly easy breakable supportcards. Thats at least some easy VPs.
I hate the thought of having to face a number of Great Companies led by an overcheesed Leman Russ! :-)
Eivind
>
> Fra: jyrki.saari_at_...
> Dato: 2001/11/01 Thu PM 04:16:15 CET
> Til: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> Emne: RE: Re: [NetEpic ML] A few random background ideas
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext [mailto:eivind.borgeteien_at_...]
> > Sent: 01. November 2001 15:59
> > To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Sv: Re: [NetEpic ML] A few random background ideas
> > Sensitivity: Confidential
> >
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > I think that to bring back the primarch, phoenix lords and to
> > awaken the Emperor is the wrong way to go. I think it wil
> > take away much of the "epic" feeling of the game to introduce
> > such special and very powerfull characters. If we do this,
> > almost every army will have one or more supercharacters and
> > possible gamebreakers.
> > (I think that even the Squats have some
> > ancient hero that will come back some day!) I think that it
> > should be the privelige of the chaos army to have such characters.
> >
> > To me, epic is about the grunt, the infantryman supported by
> > some stronger units. I fear that this suggestion will turn it
> > other way around, the super characters supported by some fodder.
> >
> > My group has played with some special characters made both by
> > GW and ourself and found that it is far more interesting to
> > play without them.
> >
> > I think that such characters rather belong to WH40K and not
> > to NetEpic.
> >
>
> First of all, remember we are talking about _background_.
>
> Second, there is no need to actually use the special characters even IF we
> decide to make stats for them. It would not be even reasonable, since the
> primarchs, for example, would certainly not personally lead each and every
> battle their chapters fight in. Not to mention thet there are only 9 (loyal)
> primarchs and how many battlezones? They can't be present everywhere. The
> cheesemongers will, of course, ignore this but that's something which can't
> be helped.
>
> Third, the primarchs & co would _only_ be present in the era of change
> armies. And even then as optional units with heavy restrictions. My guess is
> that, barring a special scenario, only Peter the great ;) would have an army
> big enough for them to lead. As for the Emperor, I really can't see him
> being in battlefield as he must coordinate the overall effort.
>
> Fourth, I really can't see why commanders of _really big_ armies would be
> better suited to a skirmish level game like 40K. Surely they don't
> concentrate on leading a single platoon or company.
>
> >
> > Eivind
>
>
> Jyrki Saari
>
> -There is no such thing as free lunch because eating takes time and time is
> money.
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Received on Thu Nov 01 2001 - 15:51:39 UTC