[Epic] Re: [GW] Rules Creep (was Couple Questions)

From: Chris White <chris_at_...>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 13:39:25 -0700

At 12:14 PM 9/16/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> My point? I think the 'rules creep' is nearly non-existant. New armies
>> >> are always decried as more powerful until the next army comes out and
>> >> previous lists are forgotten. In WHFB, virtually no lists are
appreciably
>> >> weaker than the others (maybe Empire).
>> >
>> > You apparently weren't playing SM/TL when Hive
>> >War came out... The creep is definitely there.
>> >
>> >Scott
>> >shupes_at_...
>>
>> ------> And I would add: For WHFB are the new High Elves tougher/better/
>> up-rated over the old HE's. I think so. Are the Dark Elves better than
>> the Old
>> High Elves - I think Yes. I think you have some degree of rules creep.
>> (I use the two most comparable example I know of for FB)
>>
>The opposite applies for 40K, Eldar and SW, the first two are a
>considerable amount more powerful than others, Dark angels and
>ultramarines are ridiculously fair, and Tyranids are quite bad. SoB I
>have yet to play, but with three units how good can they be.
>Steve
>
        <I dreamt I snip't a ream of dreams...>

        I disagree that 'Nids are bad; they are just balanced a different way:
Lots die on the way to H-t-H, then they tear it up. You just need to pick
your targets well, persevere, and lay down _some_ covering fire
(admittedly, about the best you can do), then it's possible to win.

        I had heard that they were coming out with a Codex: Imperial Agents. In
the Codex (Imperialis? the one that comes with the boxed set...) Sisters of
Battle are part of the Ecclesiarchy, who are Imperial Agents along with
Inquisitors, those police guys (Adeptus Administorum?), Assassins, etc.

        I hope this doesn't mean they're doing away with the C:IA project entirely.

        All of the above is re WH40K (joost in case ya did'n know, cobber 8P)



Nickles
Received on Tue Sep 16 1997 - 20:39:25 UTC