--- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com, Peter Ramos <primarch_at_c...> wrote:
> ...
> 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.
Spiffy: It makes internal literary logic and game balance work in the
same self-consistent and easily memorable manner: what more could we ask?
When does that option get added to the poll?
> 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:
...from a game-balance only standpoint; I hestitantly agree.
Aesthetically I stand firm on my original position.
> >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: more Chaotic.
> >
> >I'd be willing to go with any of those options if you really can't
> >abide the original fluff.
> >
Received on Mon Apr 04 2005 - 14:40:01 UTC