Hi,
i agree, changes arent always for the better, and we shouldnt change any
rules simply based on feelings about other armies. I play Slann, and i think
there are units there that are both too cheap, and too expensive. I also
think
that there are units in other armies which are both too cheap and too
expensive.
The point Peter and Yar is trying to make, is very valid. You should pay for
what
you get. Like it is now, this isnt alway so. Some armies have cheaper units
than they should be, and some that are more expensive. This is based on the
fact that armies and civilizations are different. So, the question is, how
do
we make units costs fair, and at the same time keep the feel? If we balance
the units costs, we need to make up for it somehow to keep the feel. That
means we have to mess around with structure. I dont think this is a very
good
idea, because i really dont know how we should do this. But i dont dislike
the concept, and if anyone can think of a way to do it, im all for it. If
not, then
we should keep things as they are. This subject needs alot more discussion
before
anything is tried out. I simply do not have the math skills to make a
formula
which takes into account all the variables, and the variable strength of
those
variables based on what they are (phew!).
Also, Imho, if you want to play the underdog, simply allow your opponent 500
more points or so. There are tactics and strategies for every army, but they
shouldn't
be based on the fact that you are the underdog. For every person who likes
to play
the underdog, there are probably ten who dont.
I also concede your point that we should discuss more strategy and tactics.
All in good
time, as im sure this will come up more often once the revision is finished.
Patience comes
to those who wait :)
Rune
----- Original Message -----
From: <nils.saugen_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 12:15 PM
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] 5.0 review
> Hi,
>
> My foremost consern is with the upcomming armylists. For instance I know
> that here in Norway there is a lot of dissatisfaction with Chaos, and that
> will cloud our objectivness when we come to that list! IMHO, the only way
to
> secure a fair share of objectivness in this type of discussion, is to play
> each and every army over a period of time. My guess is that most of us
> active list members can't get enough playing time, then to change rules
> again and again will leed us to discussing rules again and again, rather
> than discussing strategy and tactics!
>
> So when I see dark clouds cathering in the horizon, and feel we have made
a
> wrong turn I must speak my mind! It is not my intention to be
reactionistic,
> however I strongly feel that many of the changes sugessted thus far has
not
> improved the game, but rather the oposite! And I fear for some of the
more
> controversial rules in some of the armylists.
> Anybody think the Wind Rider Host is to cheap??? Don't like Freecards???
> Think Chaos Cards are to powerfull??? Dont like pulse lasers??? Think
Squat
> preatorians are to cheap??? If Yes in any of the above or similar
questions,
> ask yourself how would I feel about this rule if I played this army????
>
> On the up side, this type of discussions generally leads to a lot of
traffic
> on the list, which is fun!
>
> Nils
>
>
>
>
> 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 Tue May 14 2002 - 11:09:46 UTC