Re: [NetEpic ML] [v5.0] SM Army building

From: Albert Farr� Benet <cibernyam_at_...>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 22:50:05 +0200

This does not solve the problem. Even "non codex chapters" are Space
Marines, and to some degree, they follow the codex astartes. Note that
except for SW which have a completely different company organization, the
rest only differ slightly from the codex.

> In terms on of organisation yes they do vary only slghtly but in term of
inclination they vary a lot the Unforgiven chapters (DA and successors) are
some of the mos Xenophobic and insular organisiations in the entire
Imperium, where as chapters like the Ultrramarines and its successor
chapters are quite willing to "play nice" as it were. Not to mention the
different reputaions of the various chapters, Their are a lot of formations
that don't want to work with the Blood Angels due to their reputation of
being completly bloodthirsty and the continuing rumours of "incidents"
around long term Blood Angel garrisons.

--->Well, I won't discuss your POV on Blood Angels because I just haven't read the last fluff from GW about them (actually I just read almost nothing coming from GW for 2 years, I'm really fed up with their incosistence with previous fluff), but ask yourself: If the X chapter, who particularly disgust BA, receives the imperial order to fight along them to cleanse a Tyranid Invasion on planet ZZZ, do you think they won't ever consider arriving one minute late? If you think that so much difference and animosity exists between chapters, we could just make "general effects" like apothecary, HQ, Techs, etc.. to work only for "friendly" chapters, but i think that should be in exceptional cases like SW and DA.


This variance has increased as GW has seen that differentiation of different
chapters brought an increase of sales. As most of this variance came from
WH40k, it's quite annoying the interest from GW on rising the stats of the
different chapters because...anyone has seen GW redefining any army for
poorer stats without renewing the whole game?

> I admit you do have a point here but they have no qualms about reducing
the effectiveness of existing armies when bringing out ne ones which is
similar

--->Thats an interesting POV, probably reducing efectiveness when you have made more than half the sales expected (which, don't forget is their objective) is not so important for this kind of design style. The problem, we all know, is that adding more and more power as new rules appear brings unstability to game systems, and then it's better for them to start from the beggining again. It's not a bad commercial tactic, I have to admit.

But, as a matter of fact, I don't like so much special rules for Black
Templars, White Scars and so on...because this will bring a kind of "GW
sickness" where some armies are "overfluffed" and some others "underfluffed"
or with no Fluff at all. Is everybody willing to do ten different types of
Squat army? or ten Craftworlds? or ten Tyranid bio-critters variant
mutations?

> If people feel that it is neccesary yes remember this is just the SM
revision the other armies haven't had a look in yet and they may get
completely changed once their revision rolls round.

--->Then I really hope so. Take a look at my porevious mail.


Perhaps, we have to be a little more sensible with the extend of the fluff
and special units. How many different units will the SM have? and da Orks?
and the Nids?

A year ago I was bothering with the fact that Squat army was always the same
army on tabletop. The same units, not because they were the best, but
because they were so few and without medium level units (they were too good
or useless) that there was only of choice for an army. So...

I understand Yar's POV to a point, because a SM army, with all chapters
available will have almost as different units to choose as two (or three)
other armies. This might be not fair. I think that as long as the point
costs remain tuned with the power of the units, there is not much of a
problem. Just add more variance to the units available to other armies and
it's ok.(As an example, you only have thunderers as Squat Heavy Infantry,
then add Stormers which is another squat heavy infantry unit with the
equivalent of the previous in another terms i.e. 2 dice 50 cm 5+ -1 Ignore
Cover -50 points)

But which is not fair at all (and also nonsense) is that the most flexible,
fast and agile attack force in the universe have the same problems to battle
together as if they were fighting with IG stunties. While Khorne and
Slaanesh keep being allowed as the same army and Blood Axes can be part of
the same army as fundamentalist Snakebites, Blood Angels and Ultramarines
are treated ONLY as allies???????? no no no no...


> Again in certain respects you have my agreement here with the chaos issue
but I have a different solution for it leading on from what has happened in
WFB and 40K since the original Epic came out. Basically split the chaos
army as it is into 4 main divisions, cult spacemarine daemon and add one for
the traitor Titan legions. For the daemon and cult forces have a restriction
on the combinations of powers allowed or do it 1 major power 1 subordiate
ally same as for SM. With something similar with the CSM but arranged along
Legion lines and the range of units allowed expanded. With something like
the Black legion or the Astral Claws as a Vanilla chapter.

G

--->I think that the Chaos split would be a good idea, since there's a lot of possibilities to play with. Notice how would vary the tactics when playing Cultist force (a more IG-PDF focused army), CSM (a flexible and fast army), Daemon(Pure and raw CC power) and TTL (Awesome firepower with limited numbers). No two Chaos armies would be the same, and even with Chaos power restrictions (I think was Khorne vs Slaanesh and Nurgle vs Tzeench), you will have a wide choice of tactics to play. If that could be applied to Eldar, Squat and Nid then will be OK but if we don't allow them for more choice they will get somewhat stuck.

Albert
Received on Wed Jun 12 2002 - 20:50:05 UTC