Re: [Epic] Net Epic Gudelines

From: John A Chapman <jac_at_...>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 10:48:53 +1100 (EST)

> > As far as the cards go, I think that pricing everything
> > in multiples of 50pts is a problem, and is part of the reason
> > some units are over/underpriced. 40k involves massive number
> > crunching, so why can't Epic players handle a point system in
> > multiples of 25? (or even 5?)
        Good point - maybe 5 points is a finer margin than necessary but
50 is too small a minimum price differential to use.

> Objectives would therefore be worth 20 points each, rather than 5.

        Yes something would need to be done in this reguard....Also maybe
a ruling setting a number of objectives (or the value of each) depending
on army size - so in big games objectives are worth as much (relatively) as
in small games (ie - so you cant win a small game by just taking 6-7 objectives
> >
> > > Keep the current system. While we may want to make more individual
> > > characters, like Phoenix Lords or Bjorn the Fell-Handed, the current
> > > Terminators, which can be done in 40K, is unrealistic. The army card
> > > system puts a stop to such silliness.
> >
        It limits it but many of the cheesier units are the individuals (Ragnar,
Gazgkhull (sp?)) and i think thats just a product of trying to make an
individual stand have noticeable power - possibly unavoidable except at the
cost of having individuals who arent going to make much of an impact on battles.

> > Well, actually I would think the scarcity of terminator
> > stands is what puts a stop to such things. THere's nothing in
        You play WYSIWYG dont you........GW loves people who are willing to
buy (is it 6 boxes or only 3-4...) of the plastic stuff in order to get one
company (no personal insult intended - merely a comment on such practises
where you want to play WYSIWYG Warp Spiders and tto do so they expect you
to buy 4 boxes to get 1 group of 4 Dark Reapers (which you have to convert!)
and hell i dont need 4 wind hosts (2 Ive got + the additional 2 that comes with
the new boxes...)).

> > The stand-by-stand method might not be too bad, depending
        But it might suck having to remember all the stats on all the
individual stands - arming detatchments differently would be simpler....
> Someone else mentioned limiting the number of detachements/companies of any
> single type you can buy. I think that's a good idea, as well, to help keep
> the cheese even lower.
        Good plan - but may have problems with HVU's in small point games....
Id be interested to hear suggestions (but not like GW would listen to them
even if they were the best commentary ever on the subject :( )
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:04 UTC