Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: New file uploaded to netepic

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:51:07 -0500

Hi!

hehe, the famous t-hawk for chaos question rises yet again! For the
record it is not our idea that they have them. That was one of those
famous GW rulings. Of course being who we are we can change that if need be.

There are several things to keep in mind. A lot of players dont even use
fliers. Therefore the t-hawk for chaos issue is moot. Second those who
do, use AA units to defend making their successful deployment very
dubious. I've played this a million times with the flier netepic rules.
The t-hawk has lost much of its impact on the game due to the advent of
AA units. Many players just don't risk it. Granted before the advent of
such units it was a problem. Also if your opponent does NOT bring AA
unts and you bring t-hawks when playing chaos he's most likely dead.
Question is: is that a reflection on the rules or the opponents poor
planning?

Regarding the chaos army list, what has changed? Nothing really. All the
"core" accepted rules are there. The only difference are all the
OPTIONAL add-ons. Again I stress the optional part because if you dont
like them you dont need to use them NOR can they be used against you.
Optional rules need agreement by both parties.

On the arguement that chaos is really a close combat army, is it really?
I can devise chaos armies with no optional elements and play it
successfully as a non-close combat army. Now this brings up another old
question: "should the chaos list be one list or is it really several?".
I am very used to a combined chaos army. That is a chaos army with
demons, cultists and chaos marines. It is a very hard combination to
beat since I can bring the best of shooting and close combat to bear.

I think with chaos it is more of a problem of combination of certain
elements that WHAT they can get. Our last discussion on this resulted in
leaving chaos as is, which means you can combine all these different
arms. Of course the other question is-is this balanced? My slant is no.
As it stands the chaos lists are just like combining SM and IG, too good.

If chaos were to be divided I think it would be along the lines of
"marines" and "non-marines". I think it is the chaos marines, their
primarchs and their equipment that induces that unbalancing element in
the current chaos lists. In essence should chaos marines be on their
own? You be the judge.

The bottom line for now is that chaos remains unchanged, all additions
are optional. The matter to debate is that the chaos army lists as
original intended and presented are balanced or not.

You decide.

Peter

Luca Lettieri wrote:

>> Woha,
>>
>> This is really an issue for you, isn't it....
>>
>> Well, I must say I agree with you on this one Luca. Anyway, it'll
>> just be an optional unit!!!!
>
>
> It's an issue because I've seen it happen countless times, and ALMOST
> ALWAYS for chaos. I don't know why, it just happens again and again.
>
> With other armies there's hardly any problem. I mean, look at
> imperial ones: everyone agrees that it would be pretty stupid for any
> given imperial commander not to use a "joint army", but since mixing
> SM and IG would result in horrible cheese, no one gives a damn about
> logic and settles for play balance (as it should be).
>
> Then we get to chaos and...
> "chaos should get Thunderhaws, after all, normal marines have them so
> why not chaos?"
> "chaos should be able to teleport terminators into battle, after all,
> normal marines can do that so why not chaos?"
> "chaos cultists should have heavy artillery, after all IG armies have
> them and cultists are renegade IG"
>
> and so on and so on. Hello? If logic gets dropped to preserve balance
> in every other case, why chaos should be treated any differently?
>
>
> Luca Lettieri
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>
>
Received on Tue Jan 16 2001 - 15:51:07 UTC