Hi!
As part of this topic I am posting my responses to the thread on this
issue occurring at tactical command:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=9155;st=0;r=1;&#entry198130
Quote:
My personal opinion is on the side of "no allies". Never have used them.
Never will. Having played all armies, I find them to do just fine
without allies. They each have strengths and weaknesses, thats part of
the charm.
Armies like exodites and dracons were originally made as part of teh
greater list they belong too and not wholly stand alone, but I would
rather round them off with some generic units than permit allies from
other force lists.
I like Vanvlaks list. It is graphical, so complexity is not an issue.
Just follow the colors and you know which is which. Alsoif allies are
permitted I believe the should be limited to a max of 25%. No more.
Loofnick has a key point. One that I will stress and try to promote. I
think epic armies should be REQUIRED to use certain amount of base
units, like warmaster does. In other words an IG army HAS to have IG
infantry companies, a SM army HAS to have some sort of infantry company,
Eldar HAS to have guardians.
This can be expressed as a percentage (any army must have at least "x"
percent of these core units) or a ratio (you must have "x" amount of
core company cards before you can bring more than one more specialized
cards.
Since I like to have netepic be all inclusive, we can have BOTH. I would
keep allies and their rules (whatever we determine them to be) as an
optional rule where both players need to agree on having allies in their
game and keep as core no allies.
Thoughts?
End quote
Peter
Received on Sat Apr 14 2007 - 13:53:38 UTC