.
> I've been recently contemplating wether I should create rules for all
>=
the SM/TL unit types that were bumped in E40K, as well as converting
> my =
own rules to E40K (see my homepage). However, it would seem that
> this wo=
uld defy the purpose of the game (ie. minimum unit types and
> special rule=
s).
I wouldn't say minimizing unit types is really the
purpose of them ga=
me (otherwise, why all the new IG tanks?).
While the game does cut down on =
the number of special rule
exceptions running around, most of the units tha=
t were left
out can be easily represented with just the basic specialties
g=
iven in the rulebook (frex: IG assault troops - as IG +
jump packs, assault=
; IG bikes - as SM bikes; etc). So create
away.
Also there are now the ne=
w abilities, which could be generic out to make new troops
other than the =
fact it looks silly. For instance I made up rules for mercenary troops by a=
ddint the 'White Scars' ability, it fits that things like eldar pirates and=
ork freebooters would use hit & run tactics. if anyone is interested I'll =
post the detachment lists.
-----------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Your incor=
rect assumptions are threefold."
"You assume law still reigns in the Five G=
alaxies"
"You assume that we would be bound by precedents and precepts from=
the last 10 million years."
"But your most incorrect assumption of all is =
to assume that we care."
-David Brin, Infinity's Shore
-------------=
----------------------------------------James Nugent-----------------------=
-----------------
- application/ms-tnef attachment: stored
Received on Thu Jul 10 1997 - 16:42:01 UTC