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

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 13:06:26 -0400

Hi!

Good, point, I suggest these "special armies" be optional and left outside
the generic core forces.

Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: "Luca Lettieri" <magnus_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 5:22 AM
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 - 17:06:26 UTC