>From: jyrki.saari_at_...
My thoughts on this is that Special Chaaracters such as those mentioned
below can only be used in campaigns where the Armies concerned can only use
one of each character and they are moved as part of an Armylist around the
map area of the campaign; or
The amount of points before such a special character bcomes available for
selection should be so large that it is going to be a major commitment of
force (even for a one off battle) that theoretically a major special
character (uber-character?) would be required to be present because of the
scale of force. A suggested bracket could be say 30 000 - 50 000pts? This
amount would fit in with a map campaign very well.
Darryl H
> > 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.
>
>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.
>
> > Eivind
>
>
>Jyrki Saari
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Received on Mon Nov 05 2001 - 16:16:39 UTC