The Resolution has been Raised and Seconded: Should we vote on this
solution?
( I also think this is a brilliant solution, using the pre-existing
precedents of other armies. Elegant, and easier to remember...)
As a Design Principle: No more Special Exceptions to the General
Rules !!!
--- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com, Mete Senyol <kume1967_at_y...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I like this, thinking a SM army can have 25% Imperials
> or Imperial army can have 25% SM, why we are
> restricting chaos powers so much.
>
> Another way to make rule simpler we can say one must
> have 50% from a fraction army list and not taking more
> than 25% from other Chaos god lists.
>
> Mete
>
> --- Stephane Montabert <kotrin_at_y...> wrote:
> > I've been reading through the "hot" debate over
> > Chaos
> > combinations ;) and as usual I'm so happy to see
> > that
> > NetEpic community is so full of reasonable, open
> > minded people. It's really a breath of fresh air
> > when
> > it comes to rule design.
> >
> > I like Yar's analysis over the two sides of
> > animosity:
> > a rule for army building and a rule for game play.
> > Maybe they should be combined in both, maybe not.
> >
> > Personnally, I don't like the idea of Chaos Power
> > Pairs - too restrictive and arbitrary. Basically, it
> > means that by running a single-power chaos army, you
> > put yourself at a distinct disadvantage since you
> > could field units from the associated power without
> > any drawback. While it stands in the name of fluff,
> > it
> > means that there are two Chaos armies, one dual-god
> > pair or the other, and not four.
> >
> > Second, I don't like animosity rule "roll a D6, on 1
> > something terrible happen". Too random, and
> > involving
> > range checks in the middle of the game.
> >
> > Players should be allowed to field an army with 1,
> > 2,
> > 3 or even all Chaos deities, but putting themselves
> > at
> > a greater risk each time. This should be kept simple
> > and not cripple the game with a "on a d6 roll of 1
> > throw your battle plan out of the window" effect.
> > Also, I would not build any "affinity" nor "hate"
> > between powers - they are just concurrent gods.
> >
> > So, here is a suggestion:
> >
> > - If the Chaos army features more than one chaos
> > god,
> > for each power beyond the first the player must
> > discard one chaos card from his hand before game
> > begins.
> > - If the Chaos army features more than one chaos
> > god,
> > each chaos card must be allocated to a given chaos
> > god. The chaos card distributed in this way can only
> > be used on this god's units or to save Greater
> > Daemons
> > affiliated to him.
> >
> > Thus if a player has 3 greater daemons belonging to
> > 2
> > powers, he will get 8 cards, not 9, and he will have
> > to divide those 8 cards into two stacks - making the
> > whole army less flexible and reliable, since he
> > could
> > not play *any* chaos card to save *any* greater
> > daemon
> > anymore.
> >
> > For fluff reason, the explanation is simple: the
> > more
> > Powers are involved into a battle, the more cautious
> > and mistrustful each Chaos God is, weakening the raw
> > energy of Chaos. For a maximum flexibility with
> > Chaos
> > cards, a chaos player should take only one God. He
> > still could build a 4-power army for large games,
> > but
> > then he would only have 9 cards allocated to 4
> > Daemons.
> >
> > I think this "Chaos Card approach" is simple and
> > does
> > not require range checks or dice roll, while being
> > restrictive enough to be taken into account by Chaos
> > players.
> >
> > Whaddayathink?
> >
> >
> > Stephane
> >
> > .:: www.stephane.info ::.
> > "It's better to enlarge the game than to restrict
> > the players." -- Eric Wujcik
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> >
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.
> http://personals.yahoo.com
Received on Wed Apr 06 2005 - 13:21:49 UTC