Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 5
  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

why this illogical army mixing
darkangel
 Post subject: why this illogical army mixing
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:16 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:55 am
Posts: 470
Location: Germany
hi folks,

in my point of view it was a great fault in sm2ed to allow mixing forces. I know that the authors of netepic have spent so much energy in improving the old rules (and of course they DID improve them!) but hey...you forbit mixing eldar and chaos and you forbit mixing chaos and marines...I know because of some historical stuff...but why you allow mixing a ork army with imperial knights or better vice versa. I do not understand that. you had the chance to change it by creating a new rulebook...they are calling IMPERIAL Knights and could support an ork army when fighting against IMPERIAL Guards...probably you could give me another historical argument to this. but hey...it would be so simple playing netepic by outtaking the wholo mixing rules. there are so many differnt races with their own special models and in my opinion the models and a battle is very well in ballance. please tell me that there will something change in netepic v5.1

regards
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
primarch
 Post subject: why this illogical army mixing
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:48 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27069
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Hi!

The issue of "allies" has been a bothersome one throughout the years. We have gone from no allies, to some, to complex mixes of this and that.

I guess the real question to all would be...

..should allies be permitted at all?

If so, what and whom should have them?

Let us take advantage of this thread to revisit and discuss this.

I consider this topic to be of such import that I will also post this question on the netepic mailing list.

Voice your opinions on this matter.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
zap123
 Post subject: why this illogical army mixing
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:00 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:47 am
Posts: 3065
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Personally I like armies to be pure. ?Each army has its' own flavour and its' own strengths and weaknesses. ?Allies are often a way to minimise your own forces' weakness. ?Taking an Imperial Guard Arty company with a Space Marine army is a classic example. ?Another common one was taking an SM Scout Company and some T-Hawks with your Imp Guard. ?In both these cases you are taking a very strong primary army and minimising their traditional weakness with allies. ?To me this kind of thing is a little whiffy. ?There are some forces that regardless of fluff probably shouldn't get to take allies just for balance purposes.

Having said that, there are armies out there that would be very difficult to play without allies. ?Eldar Exodites and Dracon both spring to mind. ?The Chaos 4 powers armies will also be kinda funny without being able to take the other powers as allies. ?If we were to remove allies we'd probably need to re-evaluate the Chaos book and seriously beef up some lists.

Despite my personal preference, I think the NetEpic 5.0 rules handle allies pretty well. ?Sure, there is the odd weird combo possible, but if someone really wants to play Imperial Knights with Ork allies more power to them I say. ?If it really offends your sensibilities just dont play them. ?Apart from some possible very minor tweaking (maybe prohibit Imperials from allying with Orks/Necrons/Dark Eldar) I'd leave the current system alone.




_________________
Fire bad, tree pretty - Buffy
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
darkangel
 Post subject: why this illogical army mixing
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:38 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:55 am
Posts: 470
Location: Germany

(zap123 @ Apr. 14 2007,06:00)
QUOTE

Hey guys,

first of all I want to say that I like it that you are so open minded to other and different opinions.

And you are right, due to the old sm2nd rules the netepic army-mixing rule is considerably better because of creating standard and codex lists with a percetage max value. but I think there should be some more exception in mixem them...look attachment.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
kamala
 Post subject: why this illogical army mixing
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:42 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:20 pm
Posts: 3
Location: Ireland
I seem to remember some background that said the Blood Axe's on occasion were hired by the Imperium, ie the odd dodgy governor out on the marches.  There was also a picture as I recall showing an Ork warboss in conversation with an Imperial Officer as the troops trudged past.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
darkangel
 Post subject: why this illogical army mixing
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:51 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:55 am
Posts: 470
Location: Germany

(kamala @ Apr. 14 2007,09:42)
QUOTE
I seem to remember some background that said the Blood Axe's on occasion were hired by the Imperium, ie the odd dodgy governor out on the marches. ?There was also a picture as I recall showing an Ork warboss in conversation with an Imperial Officer as the troops trudged past.

you may be right, of course there are many historical stuff and pictures as well...but hey, in my eyes it is a logical reaction from gw. by mixing up the whole armies the ork guy goes to a store and buys some imperial stuff and vice versa...and so gw made new historical relation, so that the buiseness works..but now you create a very new and fantastic game called netepic...and there could be some other historical relations...
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: why this illogical army mixing
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:33 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Nah the Blood Axe thing is very old background info, not a newer addition.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
vanvlak
 Post subject: why this illogical army mixing
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:39 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:52 am
Posts: 10348
Location: Malta
Hi all,
I very rarely comment on rules, but I like the idea of allies, just for variety - and also to be able to use loose small forces  which are too small to be armies.
I've attached a VERY opinionated diagram which you can all have fun hacking away at. I've based my choices on GW fluff through the ages mainly (e.g. Eldar and Slann, IG and Blood Axes, Dark Eldar and Harlequins) although I've avoided some (e.g.  Eldar and Orks were originally both against the C'tan - Necron WH40K Codex); I have also added some of my interpretations (Inquisitiion and Harlequins).
I just hope I havn't forgotten any army.
PS - out of sheer laziness and well, lack of time, I only filled in half the diagram, as it is, after all, symmetrical.  :p

_________________
Back from oblivion (again)?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
loofnick
 Post subject: why this illogical army mixing
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:35 pm
Posts: 246
Location: Sheffield, England
I generally think thst allies shouldn't be allowed, for the sake of armies keeping their weeknesses, and character.  


If you do use Allies though, every army should bring their own cannon fodder.  Each army book could have 'core' companies, which they must take before anything else, or as a % of the army
eg.  IG tactical company, Eldar Guardian, Space Marine Tactical or Battle Companies
(all right, so the Space Marines are not exactly Cannon Fodder, but it's the nearest they get, and avoids Terminators or Landraiders turning-up on their own).

Otherwise you will always get cheesy allies, filling in the main armies weekness, and not adding the traditional downside to the allied army.

I would also broadly support Vanvlak's list above, though it's complexity is a little daunting.  And as, Dark Angel suggested, some armies should not fight opponants of their own race (mainly Eldar, maybe Tau and Squats?).  Also, allied Genestealers and Blood Axes?  How did that happen, and why are Genestealers separate from Tyranids? E. Armageddon lists I suspect.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
vanvlak
 Post subject: why this illogical army mixing
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 1:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:52 am
Posts: 10348
Location: Malta

(Hena @ Apr. 14 2007,13:44)
QUOTE
Just out of curiosiy V, why the Marines are allowed to use non human allies? One would think that they'd be too xenophobic to do so. Also shouldn't Tyranids be allowed to use Genestealer cults as they would imcoporate them into the hive when they arrive?

Tyranids are allowed to use GS - it only appears that GS can ally Tyranids as I was too lazy to fill in the other half of the chart. But basically, if GS are allowed Nids as allies, the opposite applies also.

As for SMs - that's one of the discussion points. As IG have been known to be allies of the Eldar (for example), I wouldn't mind the SMs doing the same - not ALL SMs - the more Xenophobe chapters would never do this. But others - such as the Space Wolves - might.

By the way, the same applies to Inquisitors - most hardliners would NEVER ally with aliens - let alone Lost and Damned! But the more desperate or corrupt would, and I'd leave this option open.

Genestealers are separate because of the cults, which form in human societies in a way parallel to Chaos cults, albeit with messy genestealer infestation and hybrids all the way. Unless they are discovered, I could see the unsuspecting IG working with a pdf which are really cultists. Or an L&D cult working with a GS cult to overthrow a planetary governer, and then fighting for the spoils, with the big boys closing in (Space Marines to crush the uprisings, Chaos SMs to support the L&D, and the Tyranids to - uh - have lunch).  :p

_________________
Back from oblivion (again)?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Enderel
 Post subject: why this illogical army mixing
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 1:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:54 pm
Posts: 1134
Location: Southampton - UK
I think Vanvlak's got something there.   Was it Man O War that use to have a chart like that? Or Blood Bowl?

I definately think you should only be able to use one allied force within your army and that the majority should come from the main list . e.g. Marines and IG in one army, min 75% Marines, upto 25% IG.  

Personally unless some one has problems fielding a full army at the allocated points then I don't really see the need for allies.  As Loofnick points out it adds to the flavour / personality of the armies by not being able to compensate so easily.

_________________
I am become death the destroyer of worlds.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
vanvlak
 Post subject: why this illogical army mixing
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 2:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:52 am
Posts: 10348
Location: Malta

(Enderel @ Apr. 14 2007,14:44)
QUOTE
Was it Man O War that use to have a chart like that? ...

I definately think you should only be able to use one allied force within your army and that the majority should come from the main list . e.g. Marines and IG in one army, min 75% Marines, upto 25% IG.

Nice work Enderel, you've got my pedigree in one go. Man O' War was the only game I was ever successful at (go, Skaven!) , and one of my strong favourites. And yes, that's where it came from :)
And I'd agree with the majority/minority partitioning.

Not to mention the potential for trouble - firm allies never have issues, but less watertight alliances (eg Eldar and IG) could have 'issues' represented by one army not responding to orders regularly etc.

_________________
Back from oblivion (again)?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
primarch
 Post subject: why this illogical army mixing
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 2:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27069
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Hi!

My personal opinion is on the side of "no allies". Never have used them. Never will. Having played all armies, I find them to do just fine without allies. They each have strengths and weaknesses, thats part of the charm.

Armies like exodites and dracons were originally made as part of teh greater list they belong too and not wholly stand alone, but I would rather round them off with some generic units than permit allies from other force lists.

I like Vanvlaks list. It is graphical, so complexity is not an issue. Just follow the colors and you know which is which. Alsoif allies are permitted I believe the should be limited to a max of 25%. No more.

Loofnick has a key point. One that I will stress and try to promote. I think epic armies should be REQUIRED to use certain amount of base units, like warmaster does. In other words an IG army HAS to have IG infantry companies, a SM army HAS to have some sort of infantry company, Eldar HAS to have guardians.

This can be expressed as a percentage (any army must have at least "x" percent of these core units) or a ratio (you must have "x" amount of core company cards before you can bring more than one more specialized cards.

Since I like to have netepic be all inclusive, we can have BOTH. I would keep allies and their rules (whatever we determine them to be) as an optional rule where both players need to agree on having allies in their game and keep as core no allies.

Thoughts?

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
zap123
 Post subject: why this illogical army mixing
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 2:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:47 am
Posts: 3065
Location: Brisbane, Australia
As I said before, I think the lists as they stand do a pretty decent job of keeping alliances sane.  Some tweaking might be warranted, but apart from the Necrons I haven't found anything in the lists yet that sounds too rediculous.  As noted, there are at least two bits of early fluff with IG and Orks fighting together that I can recall.  Chaos allying with IG should be out, but should be ok with the PDF (Cultists).  Tyranids allying with PDF should also be ok for the same reason.  Necrons rightly shouldn't be allowed to ally with anyone which is one change to the current rules I am an advocate for.

If we did go for the table approach it'd need tweaks.  There are a bunch of lists that aren't on that version, and at least one on there that doesn't have a list :).  Couldn't see Harlies playing with DE, Squat and Eldar a twee dicy etc.

How about we develop the table and add it to the optionals for people who want to be more prescriptive about allies.

_________________
Fire bad, tree pretty - Buffy
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 5
  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net