Hi!
Jarreas Underwood wrote:
>>One: Alliances between Chaos Powers.
>>This is the "Can I run a combined Khorne-Nurgle-Slaanesh-Tzeentch army?" question.
>>
>>
>
>You know, I don't remember if we ever talked about this. The 4.1 rules didn't have any such restriction, and I entered a "no Khorne-Tzeentch" somewhere near version C of the current revision. That's why I put it to a poll - we have a need for a limitation and no real possibility for a consensus. Thus, a vote. Since we've got both fluff and philosophy backing both choices it really doesn't make a difference.
>
>However, Since the origional Chaos discussion/vote involved over 40 people, I think it's fair to say that any subsequest vote containing less than 5% of the netepic mailing list population (22 votes) is subject to question.
>
>
Until now, no such restriction was in place or mentioned, beyond perhaps
passing comments. I guess we'll get into that now... ;-)
You make on interesting point about the "voting threshhold". I'm tempted
to say that is votes dont generate at least a 5% response, perhaps they
should count.
Then again, if the same cadre of people are the only ones to participate
then perhaps total number of voters is less important.
>>Two: Animosity.
>>This is the "Do my Greater Daemons attack each other?" question.
>>
>>
>
>I refer you to the poll at http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/netepic/surveys?id=1069192 for the group's vote about two years ago. It took a while to settle it out, and a number of folks weren't too happy with it. Before we bring up the issue again I'd like to ask:
>
>"How has it worked?" Has anyone played with animosity? Is it unbalancing? Does it restrict your army construction and deployment? How's it fare in play?
>
>I can't say because I haven't had a game in the past two years. If you've played with it, great! Your opinion counts for more than mine and I'll listen to what you have to say. If not, I'll still listen but unfortunately you're fighting against the inertia of a two-year-old arguement. And if you've got kids, you know how hard it is to convince a two-year-old of *anything*.
>
>The intent of animosity was to discourage thre-Power armies that take advantage of the vast array of units available. It didn't need to be a great disadvantage, and my origional idea was the loss of two Chaos Cards for every Power you chose after the first. That didn't fly so we went with animosity. Instead of chucking it, what do you suggest we replace it with?
>-Yar
>
>
>
From my gaming experience animosity works. It isnt cumbersome and
achieves the desired result of limiting mixing of armies.
Peter
Received on Tue Apr 05 2005 - 20:25:30 UTC