Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: Chaos army book

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 16:38:41 -0400

Hi!

My stance would be to add two more options to the poll:

No animosity

Pervasive animosity (everybody hates everybody).

 From a game point of view, no animoisty is not good. The chaos army as
conceived originally is a tad unbalanced for unfettered use of mixed
chaos powers. Too good.

Given the above, then perhpas the "best" solution is "pervasive"
animosity. Meaning all factions are hostile to each other. From a logic
point of view (as much as can exist in a universive with demons in
them...) demons, regardless of ethos, hate each others guts and will
ally in a very narrow focus. On a game mechanics side this actually make
"theme" armies tactically better. This means a Tzeentch only force works
better than a Tzeentch with Korne one or other combinations. this
lessens the gamesmanship bonus of making such armies becuase of the
animosity rule and makes theme armies more attractive, which IMO is a
good thing.

I understand the original books thoughts and reasons behind which
factions hate whom, but truth be told this is one of those instances
where the newer fluff makes more sense:

Martial close combat god (Khorne) hates magic, kill you at a distance
god (Tzeentch)

God of desire, pleasure, individuality hates god of disease, no personal
gratification and despair (Nurgle)

Its quick simple and easy to remember.

Granted regardless of final result, everyone will use what they may, but
from a pure game balance/mechanic perspective I beleive either pervasive
animosity of Khorne vs Tzeentch, Slaanesg vs Nurgle are the simplier
more effective choices.

Peter

Toma Diener wrote:

>--- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com, "EPICentre Webmaster" <gambit_at_n...> wrote:
>
>
>>The way I see it is as follows:
>>
>>Khorne, god of war, and slaughter hates Tzeentch, god of manipulation
>>and magic
>>Slaanesh, god of fulfilment and desire hates Nurgle, god of despair
>>
>>
>and disease.
>
>Sure: that is more or less the new rationale GW is following: it just
>isn't how it was originally set up, and has a different 'in-game'
>logic than the original 'meta-game' rationale.
>
>
>>They are both diametric, Khorne is not an opposite of Slaanesh, in fact
>>they even have some simularitys.
>>
>>
>
>One could presuppose that the similarities are, in fact, the reason
>for the Animosity.
>
> Tzeench is not an opposite of Nurgle,
>
>
>>in fact they both believe in change, in one way or the other.
>>
>>
>
>
>ActuallY , No. Nurgle is Stagnant and Stanation: the lack of chanege
>in a metaphysical sense. That was the (admittedly nebulous)
>philosophy that led to the writer's original conception of the
>Oppositions.
>
>
>My original point restated more succinctly: The original oppositions
>have valid meta-game and in-game reasons for their existence. The
>'new' oppositions have some valid reasons from an in-game stand point
>also...
>
>However: I personally will not use the 'new' oppositions even if they
>succeed in a vote and become default : I am too convinced of the
>original arrangement. Moreover, I will be somewhat annoyed if the
>'original' concept is negated without a real precedent.
>
>So. what is the best thing to do?
> (none of these were presented as options on the poll, and should be IMO)
>
>1) Do we eliminate all oppositions
>
>2) have all Chaos powers as opposing as a compromise?
>
>3) have all animosities as optional rules only (that feels like a bit
>of a cop-out to me)
>
>The solution that I find most appealing from a 'gordian knot'
>standpoint would be:
>
>4) have animosity determined randomly at the beginning of each game:
>if a Chaos player is using 2 powers, there is a 50% (or 75% depending
>on how you figure odds) chance of animosity, 3 powers 75% chance (or
>100% that 2 of three are currently opposing)and 4 powers 100% that at
>least 2 (or 100% that both random sets of 2 powers) would currently be
>considered as 'opposing'
>
>I like this option because 1) it doesn't mean that either of our
>chains of reasoning are discounted and 2) Chaos means Flux. The
>'permanent' Oppositions (either way) would be a "Law of Chaos". This
>new rule would mean Chaos would be, well: Chaotic.
>
>I'd be willing to go with any of those options if you really can't
>abide the original fluff.
>
>
Received on Sun Apr 03 2005 - 20:38:41 UTC