RE: [NetEpic ML] More Design Issues

From: <jyrki.saari_at_...>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:29:02 +0200

[snip]
>
> -->I think it does matter. Not in a hard numbers sense, but
> in terms of
> design, it has to be factored in. What exactly are we trying to
> represent in playing an Epic battle? The actual numbers are
> irrelevant,
> but a general sense of are we fielding regiments, battalions,
> divisions,
> or true armies? this underpinning of thought colors all else that
> transpires. this is especially true when designing the army lists for
> the various powers that be. Some of teh "army lists" IMO shouldn't be
> available as separate entities at all. SOB comes to mind.
> Not that the
> list is bad, or the units unbalanced, but that they are a
> support unit,
> and don't field a full force on their own.

Disagree. They do fight quite a few wars of faith on their own, not to mention missionary campaigns to bring the light of the Emperor to frontier worlds.

> same applies to TechGuard
> IMO.

In my world the Tech Guard doesn't even exist, I field them as mechanized IG, but since many people like them I wouldn't vote for their relegation to a "non army" status.


Like I've said many times: "It's easier not to use something which exists than try to use something which doesn't exist." This is my maxim when I'm gaming and it allows me to tolerate other people who play Tech Guard. ;)

P.S. Just to horrify the members, after all this talk about how simple is beautiful I have started to have thoughts about "Det Epic" (meaning Detailed Epic). When I've finished the Exodite armylist I'm currently making I'll probably turn my energy towards that end. <BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! <- evil laugh>

[snip]

Jyrki Saari
Received on Mon Nov 25 2002 - 07:29:02 UTC