Re: [NetEpic ML] Going too far?

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:26:38 -0500

Hi!

Agreed. As for the chaos squats I think it is more appropriate for the
to be part of the standard chaos army lists, but with optional rules to
make them a stand alone force just like the renegades and traitor legion
rules. The core army list remains teh same but there can be as much
"color" added in the form of more variant lists that stem from the main one.

Peter

deaconblue3_at_... wrote:

> The recent dust up over Chaos has gotten me thinking. I feel we may be
> falling into a bit of a trap. That rap being that we are generating too
> many army lists, and specializing some too far. One of the great things
> about previous editions of Epic has been its flexibility in making up an
> army. Mixing and matching to fit what you had in terms of models, or in
> terms of what you could find was great. In general, the armies were
> broad enough to encompass almost any style of play. While all of the
> ideas and lists are great, and creative, and fun to play, are we
> detracting from the core game by having so many? Now it seems as if
> there is a specific army list depending on what style you play, tailored
> for that specific style. Perhaps we need to go back a step, to the SM/TL
> types of armies. Generic type lists, mix and match to your pleasure.
> Then take the more specific and specialized lists as "optional", or
> "advanced." That and I think we may be trying to micro manage some of
> these lists to a fault. I'm not really sure, but I have this nagging
> itch about this, so I thought I'd meander around a bit...
>
> Josh R
>
> Minister for General Mayhem
> "Don't let the bastards grind you down." Gen. Joseph Stilwell
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>
>
Received on Fri Jan 19 2001 - 13:26:38 UTC