Re: New file uploaded to netepic

From: Luca Lettieri <magnus_at_...>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:09:20 -0000

> > 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....
 
> Well put. We all come from different backgrounds and have a
> slightly different take on how to play the game. But as I mentioned
> before we tend to narrow our perceptions of the game to our
> experience within one gaming group.

Well, thanks to both of you for calling me a whiner but I'm not. And
my playing skills are just fine, thank you very much. Oh and
saying "no offense intended but you're an idiot" IS offensive, you
know.

I could reply with how allowing both imperial and chaos armies to
field everything levels the playing field but has the added undesired
effect of making the armies identical, but since I'm just whining I
think I'll pass up. Let me just state that if I have to field a chaos
army that has the same units of an imperial army, moves like an
imperial army, fights like an imperial army, FEELS like an imperial
army, I could as well field an imperial army and be done with it.

But I'm a whiner, so what do I know of the subtle nuances of boarding
CSM companies on Thunderhawks while using suppressive fire from my
traitor IG artillery companies? And of the big differences between
this and imperial SM companies boarding Thunderhawks while loyal IG
artillery companies pound the enemy...


Luca
Received on Wed Jan 17 2001 - 11:09:20 UTC