Hi Stephane...
Before joining the NetEpic community we tried a similar approach and foun that balancing armies was very difficult. You'll always have players that have a special knack for exploiting weaknesses in any game system, and when you give them a free range of putting together armies as they please, they will end up with killer kombos that might be against the nature of the given army. For instance an army composed of striking scorpion detachments 20 stands strong mounted in wave serpents. You could always counter this by setting limitations on the number of units one might have in each detachment, but then you are moving back towards the army cards again. Wich is what we ended up dooing once we fond netepic. (However we made some adjustmants based on our awailability of minis for instrance we use a spirit host composed of 1 unit of wraithlords and 2 units of wraithguards instead of the Net Epic standard wich is 2 units of wraithlords ans 1 unit of wraithguards)
Cheers
Nils
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephane Montabert [mailto:kotrin_at_...]
Sent: 31. august 2004 08:43
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: NetEpic future
> > Make new army cards which are more compatable with
> > how the minis are packaged these days. I. E.
> > units of two (2) Deathstrikes, etc.
> I like this suggestion, but I have a feeling there'd
> be massive resistance to it.
Hi, massive resistance speaking ;)
I find that NetEpic is not only a set of rules for
placing orders and handling close-combat, but also for
army composition. I especially like it in its current
form. Special Cards and Free cards can make it a bit
abstract, but the company / detachment makes perfect
sense and truly reflect the massive organization of an
army fielded for a large engagement.
Anyhow, we could allow more flexibility in army
composition without breaking current rules. We could
just allow under-strengh unit, but adjusting cost to
the 5 or 10 nearest point, knowing that breaking the
frame could only be a (light) disadvantage, but
reflecting wears and tears of battered down fighters.
For example, since a Deathstrike missile battery is
made of 3 launchers for 200 points (if I remember
correctly) we could say that each launcher is in fact
worth 70 pts. So it would be 70 for one (break
point:1), 140 for two (break point:1) and 200 for
three (break point:2 and a 10 pts rebate for taking a
full detachment).
Or we could decide for 65 points each and saying that
the additional unit needed to reach break point for a
unit of three is well worth the 5 extra points.
Such approach would allow greater flexibility in army
composition while letting some reward for fielding
complete units. But of course it would require a
massive update of all army books.
Waddayathink?
Stephane
=====
.:: www.stephane.info ::.
"It's better to enlarge the game than to restrict the players." -- Eric Wujcik
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
Received on Tue Aug 31 2004 - 06:51:36 UTC