Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: Idea for chaos animosit

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:06:02 -0400

Hi!

I agree, if there are no strong dissenters I will be putting up a poll.

Peter

Toma Diener wrote:

>Even Though I still like this idea quite a bit (and will likely adopt
>it as a 'House Rule') I think Stephane's analysis that it makes Chaos
>excessively random for some Players are spot-on: I think personally
>that is exactly how Chaos should be (and moreover believe that a Good
>Tactician should be able to beat any army: at least in Theory) but I
>do recognize that , all other things being equal (player ability, army
>composition, blood-sugar levels) this rule has the potential to Decide
>a Game at set-up, before any other dice are rolled: that can't be
>right! I think we all may be overestimating the 'broken-ness' of the
>Tzeentch-Khorne alliance: if an Army is Very Good at Ranged Combat
>and Very Good at close combat (like...uhm...Eldar for instance) that
>still doesn't guarantee a Win, does it? The wild-card in this is of
>course (IMO) the addition of Chaos Cards. They might prove
>unbalancing in making Chaos' survivability too High.
>
> I think Stephane's idea concerning Chaos Reward Card penalties is an
>excellent avenue to explore!!!
>
>
>
>
Received on Wed Apr 06 2005 - 19:06:02 UTC