Re: [NetEpic ML] Eldar Book

From: Toma Diener <peyoterattle_at_...>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:54:15 -0000

--- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com, "cibernyam" <cibernyam_at_h...> wrote:
> Hi,
> This could be made a sub-army list for the optional book: The
mercenaries
> army book.


I think this idea has a great deal of Merit and should be considered
for further development: Squat Mercenaries (DemiUrge), Eldar Raiders,
Rogue Trader Corporate Raiders, and Sensei WarBands spring immediatly
to mind as Types---

It would also allow Epic Armaggedon and Epic 3rd ed players (whose
armies tend to be tiny compared to NetEpic armies) a way to create and
play NetEpic Mercenary Armies combining two or more normally opposing
armies in their collection......

ReB T'oma
Memetic Engineer Knight Kodesh
Head Designer, Wabi-Sabi Games
"If It's Wabi-Sabi, its Shabui Sho' 'Nuff!!"






>
> Most mercenaries army units should be typical base line troops,
transports
> and tanks. A falcon host could be mercenary, a wave serpent unit no.
Variety
> should not be the motto, but regular (boring) troops. I doubt SM
could have
> any mercenary status beyond a VERY precise campaign setting.
>
> As a personal note, I really dislike treating allied armies as 'get
the best
> without the worst (and the regular)'. Under my POV, alies should also be
> balanced armies themselves. Taking eldar allies comprising a wind
rider host
> (in v4 or similar in v5) plus full support of aspect warriors and
tempests
> is NOT my idea. Perhaps would be more reasonable a guardian company
with a
> bike support card, a tempest and one aspect warrior support.
>
> Indeed, this idea is quite similar to the original idea of mixed
armies of
> Colonizers, Rogue traders and such explorers of farther worlds.
>
> Albert
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_c...>
> To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 8:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Eldar Book
>
>
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > This is not a ba idea. It keeps the alliy rules as they are, it just
> > defines the "slots" used.
> >
> > Opinions?
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > >
> > >Now THIS is what I call "return to one's roots"! In
> > >the olden days Eldar _were_ mercenaries. Yriel's
> > >Eldritch raiders were a mercenary company back then.
> > >
> > >I like it! But rather than making separate mercenary
> > >cards we could just state which cards can be "hired".
> > >These would represent the troops of the mercenary
> > >companies.
> > >
> > >Something like this:
> > >Each hired mercenary company card would take a special
> > >card slot and would allow mercenary support cards to
> > >be taken. However, each mercenary support card would
> > >take a support card slot from the company where the
> > >mercenary special card is allocated. Thus, the
> > >combined total of mercenary and normal support cards
> > >could not exceed the normal limit of 5.
> > >
> > >Only company and support cards should be on the "could
> > >be hired" card list. Special cards represent such
> > >specialised troops that the mercenaries are unlikely
> > >to have them.
> > >
> > >Jyrki Saari
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Received on Sun Apr 10 2005 - 13:54:15 UTC