Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: Chaos issues

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:41:35 -0400

Jarreas Underwood wrote:

>>Point taken. I beleive Jar has included them in this manner and has
>>taken animosity to an optional section.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, I didn't - the current Chaos rules only have -1 card per extra power. The point of laughing at this restriction in 6k+ battles is quite valid. This is why I favored animosity - in large battles with more Greater Daemons it'd come much more into play than at the 3k level (where the card loss would hurt more). I figured the two together would balance Chaos - one at low levels and the other at high.
>
>I'd like to put animosity bak in as a core rule, but we'd probably be better off with it as an optional rule and seeing how it goes.
>-Yar
>
>
>
Hi!

<groan>

I wonder sometimes if ALL these recent recommendations should be "optional".

Should we have a poll? A simple "optional yes or no" on both the
animosity and chaos card (as originally posted) rule?

In other words should BOTH be optional? Just one and the other core?
Both core?

Give me a quick opinion, if I see much variance, I'll post a poll.

Peter
Received on Thu Apr 07 2005 - 21:41:35 UTC