[NetEpic ML] Re: Chaos army book

From: Toma Diener <peyoterattle_at_...>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 14:53:47 -0000

Yes, I understand and agree with the intent, if not the execution.
.. Since I cannot read the current wording of the rules due to PDF
issues, could you post the paragraph specifically dealing with how
animosity is currently handled in game?

--- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com, Jarreas Underwood <jarreas_at_m...> wrote:
> 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 Mon Apr 04 2005 - 14:53:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 11:00:01 UTC