Re: Iron Warrior votes (LONG)

From: Luca Lettieri <magnus_at_...>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 08:26:42 -0000

Ok I won't pull any punch on this. So straight to the point: guys,
are you all crazy???

So let's see. We have a legion of chaos SM. Ok, best all-purpose
infantry in the whole game - standard chaos fare so far.

We give them bonuses. The general agreement is a bonus in assaulting
- I agree, as this suits the offensive nature of chaos. It surely
begins to look powerful.

Then we give them devastators. Best long-range fire support infantry
in the game. Excuse me? Best overal infantry AND long range infantry
bundled in ONE company? And a chaos unit to boot. Last time I
checked, the major chaos disadvantage was a pitiful long-range fire
support, which makes for a very bad first turn. Then you contact in
CC and start tearing the enemy apart. But no... let's allow chaos to
start effective long range firing, too.

And then the coup the grace. ARTILLERY SUPPORT. Su-u-re. Why dont'
give them an Imperator or two for free, too?

Here's my suggestion to improve the unit:

at the start of the game make an unmodified d6 roll. If you roll less
than 7, you win the game.

At least this rule will avoid both of the gamers to uselessly waste
their time in an already-decided match.

I really don't understand this. As soon as anyone starts putting
togheter SM and IG, everyone goes off yelling "CHEESE!". And NOW,
we're actually building a specific Chaos company which sums up the
best of the two imperial armies???? Has anyone actually bothered
playtesting this monstrosity? Because if you do, I'm pretty sure
you'll come up with prices in the range of 2000 pts. per detachment
to allow for any semblance of play balance.

Not to mention the fact that, if I want to play with excellent
fast-deploying infantry with heavy infantry and artillery fire
support I go and play SM/IG. When I play Chaos I want to actually
play **CHAOS**, not "mixed imperial armies wannabees".


Luca Lettieri
Received on Tue Sep 05 2000 - 08:26:42 UTC