Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: Chaos army book

From: Jarreas Underwood <jarreas_at_...>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 10:41:26 -0400 (GMT-04:00)

Well, from what I remember from the discussions we'd decided:

1) No animosity allowed for unbalanced armies. This mandated *something* to limit the effectiveness of Chaos armies.

2) Running a single Chaos Power was too stifling for some folks, and wasn't all that true to the spirit of a diverse Chaos horde anyway.

That led to the creation of animosity, which was a penalty that got bigger with a more diverse (and thus more capable) army. A one-Power army doesn't have to worry about it, while a three-Power army needs to be fairly careful about placing it's forces. The idea was accepted and polled, but the results weren't very definitive which is why I put the little "animosity is new and needs to be playtested" note in the Chaos army book.

As far as which Powers shouldn't be allowed together, I'm looking at the Khorne list (slow but nasty Close Combat joy) and the Tzeentch list (skimmers, shooters and ranged lovliness) and thinking, "I really don't want to face a skimming, shooty, Close Combat powerhouse combined army." Fluff and philosophy are cool, but I'm worried about game balance as well.
-Yar


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
\~
 |~ . o o . :;: () -0- o o .
 |~ ^
/~ |
         You are here. Wouldn't you rather be out there? -->
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC