RE: [NetEpic ML] Re: Kel's take on Chaos

From: <nils.saugen_at_...>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 11:43:50 +0200

Hear Hear!!!!!

We really don't want to fiddle to much with the armies!!!! The balance of
this game is a frail thing indeed!!!! Look at Slann.... our first buildt
from scratch Army, it has caused considerable debate both on this list and
in our gaming group!!!! And believe me, balance is the key factor!!!!

Nils

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luca Lettieri [SMTP:magnus_at_...]
> Sent: 4. september 2000 11:22
> To: netepic_at_egroups.com
> Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: Kel's take on Chaos
>
>
> --- In netepic_at_egroups.com, Kelvin <kx.henderson_at_q...> wrote:
> > With all the talk about what to do on the Chaos lists for NetEpic
> floating
> > about, I thought I'd chip in my take on how to deal with the Chaos
> of it
> > all (boom, boom).
> >
> > The way I see it, I think Chaos should be divided into three lists:
>
> I like the general idea. I just want to add a remark: let's be very
> careful about "total army capability".
> There's been a discussion about the particular traitor legion which
> should have defensive capabilities. However, I didn't see anyone
> worrying about the fact that, by adding that particular legion to a
> generic chaos army, you've just given chaos an ability which it
> didn't previously have - a good defense.
>
> So if we want to add neat special units etc. we need to keep an eye
> on the overall picture. The three different lists is a good idea -
> provided we keep them sufficiently separated.
>
> One more warning though: if we go the "add everything" route, the
> various armies will lose their character. Chaos is noted for all-out
> attack - if we do three lists, it's more than likely than at least
> one of those won't resemble the normal chaos we're used to.
> Everything will turn similar to imperial armies - they'll have
> everything, just split up in different branches.
>
>
> Luca Lettieri
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Received on Mon Sep 04 2000 - 09:43:50 UTC