Re: [NetEpic ML] Going too far?

From: quester <quester666_at_...>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:54:16 -0800 (PST)

 This is just what I ve been saying Its a mix and mach game and why you have cards to make up your armys for play

Its like I ll use 1 of theese and 2 of those and 10 of them ETC..................

play balance is not built into the army lists vs army list, its in the points system

Q...


  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





eGroups Sponsor


Get 3 CDs for ONLY $9.99!


To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com



RuneSmith Studio "we bring the art to war"



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Personal Address - Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
Received on Fri Jan 19 2001 - 16:54:16 UTC