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

From: <deaconblue3_at_...>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:32:24 -0500

'Ere we go again! Amazing how somethings never seem to go away isn't it?
 Anyway, I'm one of those who likes to get some more for Chaos,
especially CSMs. Now, for my take on things, I'll try and go issue by
issue.
        1. Transports. Rhinos, LRs, etc should only be available and
usable by CSMs. I just can't really see Demons or the monstrous critters
(trolls, Minotaurs) getting in or out of them easily, or willingly. Like
Ogryns, they shouldn't be able to use them (Ogryns don't like dark
cramped places, like rhinos). Rhinos should be part of the Chaos list,
available for use by CSMs only.
        2. The infamous T-Hawk issue. Well, I do think Chaos should get
them, but at an increased point cost (x2 at least), with the restriction
it be used solely by CSMs. No transporting Demons or monstrous types.
Also, they should only be able to get 1 for every 1000 points or so of
CSMs (and CSMs only. Points for the others don't count).
        3. Chaos can't get everything in the Imp lists. No Imperators,
no SHVs (imagine a Chaos army with a CI or Leviathan, plus Shadowswords
and baneblades, YIKES!), and much of the "newer" parts of the Marine list
are also unavailable.
        4. The "combination" issue. Chaos and the Imps are supposed to
be the big nasties of the universe. Chaos and Imps should match up
almost equally against each other. That's the fundamental theorem of how
the 40K universe is. Eldar are good, but lack umbers. Orks are
mediocre, but have lots of numbers. Squats are somewhere in between.
Bugs are nasty, running the gambit across the spectrum. Never used or
played against Slann, but they should be in the same category as the
Eldar.
        The Imperials generally use combined arms, drawing from the
various organizations to form a force. IG with Marines and Titan
support. (I still don't think the TG should be separate army). Yes,
they do operate individually on a regular basis, but the "norm" is for
combined arms. Chaos is similar. The four powers have their own unique
flavor, and the combine to form Black Crusades, or raids on worlds. It's
the nature of the beast as it were.
        I still find the issue of combining lists somewhat off center.
the issue I think is not the lists, but the players involved. As Peter
has pointed out on several occasions, there is no truly "invincible" army
out there. Since I started playing, I have always played a combined
IG/SM army. I lose as often as I win. Same applies for when I play
Chaos. Chaos needs more support, with only the Khorne Demon engines, and
the only fliers being Silver Towers, Fire Lord, and Doom Wings (none of
which are all that great). With out these additions, you can usually
defeat a Chaos army with lots of artillery, pounding them to bits before
they ever get in CC. I know, I've done it. Also, Chaos really doesn't
have an AA unit, so they are highly vulnerable to air power.
        Play balance is all fine and well, when it makes sense.
Sometimes however, play balance gets sacrificed to fit the concepts. If
you want true play balance, play Heresy era only, using only the Imperial
lists against other Imperial lists. Or just play Eldar vs Eldar. That's
play balance. still, even if using identical army lists, play balance is
skewed by the players themselves. Experienced vs inexperienced, or just
a difference in styles alters the balance. A good player can win no
matter the armies being used under most circumstances. Random dice also
factor in too don't forget.
        No offense intended here, but I see most of the arguments against
something as whining over an inability to defeat certain armies (or
players). Changing the rules so you can win on a regular basis is much
more cheezy than using what's in the army lists IMO. Not that I am
saying that is the case, I don't know for sure, but that is how it
appears at times. OK, I think I've run my corse for now....

Josh R

Minister for General Mayhem
"Don't let the bastards grind you down." Gen. Joseph Stilwell
Received on Tue Jan 16 2001 - 21:32:24 UTC