Re: Chaos issues

From: Toma Diener <peyoterattle_at_...>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:38:38 -0000

--- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com, 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.

Yes: only one of the Benefits of a 'mature' game: Mature Gamers!
(I begin to understand the Passion of the DBA community...)


> 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.


I think Yar did us all a great service in showing explicitly that the
issue was becoming confused, and defining where the Confusion was:
Thanks Yar!!!


I Really like your analysis of the situation (below): I don't know if
your solution is the best one, but it certainly deserves Playtesting!
Your ability to posit a 'Fluff' rationale to support a Game Mechanic
really puts me in my Happy Place: I also like the Idea that Chaos
sholdn't be arbitrarily Limited when other Armies are not: If the
Khorne-Tzeentch combination is truly Broken (as some have hinted at,
myself included) it suggests a Problem with the Design system, and an
'Ad Hoc' patch is too MicroSoft a solutiion: NetEpic deserves a
Linux-ey solution: Stable, Elegant, Simple, and Dynamic.

Your idea for a Percentage Based solution combined with a Penalty of
chaos Cards seems ideal: Minimum 50% of one Power: perhaps we can
impose the Chaos Card restriction on the 'Gamist' armies of K-T. I
like the idea that a 3 or 4 Power army will always have more
Animosity....(Perhaps the 3rd Power in an Army would receive _no_
Chaos Cards even)

> 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?

I Like it....I Really Like It!!!!!

> Stephane
> .:: www.stephane.info ::.
> "It's better to enlarge the game than to restrict the players." --
Eric Wujcik

That's the Quote!!! You Go, Stephane!!!


(In the interest of full disclosure, I feel the need to re-iterate
that the Games I play are usually in the 5-10K range, and so the
Concerns I have are based on different presuppositions than I suspect
Yar or Peter are looking at)

T'oma
Received on Wed Apr 06 2005 - 13:38:38 UTC