Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: Chaos issues

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 14:58:44 -0400

Hi!

Point taken. I beleive Jar has included them in this manner and has
taken animosity to an optional section.

Given the consensus so far (and the new discussions on eldar), the
discussions on chaos are for the moment concluded.

Jar has posted the "beta" book for chaos, so I'd urge everyone to take a
look at it! :-)

Peter

cibernyam wrote:

>Hi,
>
>IMHO the restriction on how to spend cards is the key. Losing one card per
>extra power in a 3k game may seem OK, but in a 6k game where you'll get
>around 6-7 greater daemons (18-21 cards) losing two or three cards is like a
>very little annoyance. In a 10k game... Chaos player just laughs.
>
>Then it is more important to allocate cards carefully, taking into account
>which power will take more "punch" from the other army. While it is true,
>that you have to keep separate records, you'll have a maximum of four. Non
>power-specific units can benefit from cards from any power (easy). I think
>the worst Chaos player can distinguish in less than one second which chaos
>specific unit belongs to which power.
>
>Also, I notice that in this way, the other player will try to focus its
>attacks on one or two powers to exhaust their card supply quicker than with
>older rules. A bit like the tactics against ork clans. Not bad, opens a new
>strategical approach against Chaos.
>
>Thus, IMHO, only subtraction is clearly insuficient. Subtraction plus card
>restriction maybe OK.
>
>Anyway, I think that I'm the only one who actualy likes the idea of Greater
>Daemon animosity. Hell! is a God meeting another God in the battlefield,
>they will have plenty of (eternal) grudges to solve before squashing those
>little humans/eldar/squats/whatsoever!
>
>Albert
>
>
Received on Thu Apr 07 2005 - 18:58:44 UTC