RE: [NetEpic ML] [5.0] the revision continues, chaos! (pretty long)

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:37:06 -0400

Hi!

>These are more problematic:
>T-hawk
>Whirlwind
>Landspeeders
>
>I would recommend that we allow all the above units and let people sort out
>amongst themselves which to use since that’s what people do anyway.

This might be the easiest solution. I'd like to see the above possibly as
"one per company" only or something similar.
To reflect the rarity of this stuff.

>>That a good idea too and simple to remember.

>Another point is what “allies” from the standard chaos list that should
>be allowed. Besides greater demons and primarchs I would say only allow
>“demonic” units (i.e minor demons), any broader leeway invalidates the
>separation that has been made.

Sounds good. Keep the armies seperate and unique. Imperials arent allowed
any allies so chaos should have the same level of restriction.


> >>> This part will need to be changed to reflect the new divisions and
>restrictions discussed above.
>

At least for chaos space marines, this madly needs to be changed. CSM arent
unwitting pawns to greater demons.. hell.. some dont even worship chaos
(night lords) or do not follow any single chaos god (alpha legion , iron
warriors).

>>Agreed. As I mentioned before the CSM legion needs to be the center of army creation not the demons.


> >>>This section has no changes I can think of. It went a long way in
>clearing up on what units a power may be played.

Needless to say, I hate special cards like these ;)
But I think Im the only one *grins*

>>Part of the problem was that there were too many good units to cast them on thus compounding the problem. In a CSM army since you don’t need demons so you may not have that much magic available and thus the powers don’t seem that bad. Now you cant have armies with lots of magic AND CSM powers.

>>Another caveat would be to all the special CSM power ONLY if the primarch is present. Opinions?


>Keeper of Secrets
>
> >>>I always found confusing the fact that the attack is in the advance
>phase, but before others in the phase. This I believe is a hold over from
>when the game had a psychic phase. I suggest we eliminate such
>artificiality and let greater demons attack when they normally act as
>command units (first fire phase). It eliminates all these needless
>differences.


This sounds fine. Avoids the confusion and pointless little rules like that

>Fulgrim - Primarch of the Emperors Children
>
>Master of the intricacies of perverted pleasure Fulgrim may entice all
>enemy units within 15 cm during the orders phase. The units must take a
>morale check (the check is made at a -2 penalty); any units that fail the
>morale check are controlled by the Chaos player (the Chaos player may issue
>orders, move and fire those units as his own) until the end of the turn.
>This is a non-physical psychic attack.
>Models: GW metal model.
>
>I have always been dissatisfied with this power even with the fine tuning
>we have given it. Any suggestions?

I think its pretty darn nasty actually. If you want to beef it up, make it
25 cm instead. But Im not sure if this power /needs/ to be any better.

>>Not better, just simpler, better worded or a different power that is easier to execute.

>Bloodletters
>
>These are the hunters that bring more blood to sacrifice to Khorne. They
>are especially feared due to their ability to regenerate wounds. A
>Bloodletter model that is slain is not removed but placed on its side, in
>the end phase roll one D6 for every Bloodletter on its side and on a roll
>of 4+ it regenerates the wound, is restored and may be given orders
>normally in the next orders phase. If the roll is failed the model is
>removed and counts toward the unit break point. Models: Bloodletter models
>from GW Chaos sprue.
>
> >>>One issue to be discussed. Does any form of regeneration work in close
>combat. It was decided with necrons that it didn’t, but I am not sure of
>that rememdy for chaos and tyranids. Opinions?

I would say no to that. Close combat have always been "final" in NetEpic. I
dont think we should begin letting units break that.
After all, if I beat a shadowsword in close combat, its gone with no chance
of survival. I refuse to belieave some pesky little demon would be more
resilient, demon or not :)

Besides, Bloodletters are pretty tough already. I dont think they need more
benefits.

>>That’s two votes so far for general rule of no regeneration in close combat.

> >>>Clarification, blue horrors would remain pinned if the pink horrors
>they sprang from were pinned themselves.

So if killed in close combat, both horrors owuld be place in contact with
the killer ?

>>If they are pinned by the unit, yes.

Peter
Received on Thu Feb 13 2003 - 22:37:06 UTC