RE: [NetEpic ML] Re: Thoughts on Chaos

From: <jyrki.saari_at_...>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:51:40 +0200

[snip]
> -->If teh background permits it, then it can be. As I said before,
> Heresy era battles would certainly permit this, and would even be
> encouraged. Then again, they wouldn't be Beserkers either (except for
> the veteran company). I'm saying that at the most advanced
> point of the
> time line (M41), it would be outside of "normality" for that
> to happen.
> By M41, the old traitor legions are so fractured that they
> retain little
> or no aspects of their former structures.

And still there are large enough contingents of most of the legions to actually make individual attacks. Word Bearers, Night Lords, Iron Warriors, Black Legion, Thousand Sons and Death Guard at least are large enough to have a planet of their own. In the old fluff that was the case with even World Eaters and Emperor's Children.


> even their armor
> colors have
> changed, and they usually retain only one or two bits from
> the Heresy era
> armors. The World Eaters have killed off all their librarians and
> chaplains, for example, so the old structure simply can't be.
>

So? Many of the loyalist chapters bear little resemblance to Codex dictates. Why shouldn't Chaos get some variety? "Standardized Chaos" sounds a bit odd at least to me... ;)

> Yep, that's your opinion... mine is different. The history of 40k is
> simply evolved, new races are born and some things changed. Comes to
> my mind that according to your ideas, I cannot field TAU or C'tan
> armies either (I agree with you that they squeezed them into the
> background only to sell the pieces, but they are still there and I
> should have the possibility to play with them too).
>
> -->Yes it is my opinion, and that of others as well. 40K did
> not evolve.
> The changes were often made, not "naturally" but arbitrarily to
> accomodate new figs, not because they advanced the story, or
> enhanced the
> setting. The destruction of the Squats was one such move, made not
> because of the setting, but despite it. You are aware of why
> the Squats
> were eliminated aren't you? I don't like the Tau. I think they're
> mishandled, and are more of a pentagon in a rhombus hole.

I don't like Tech Guard. I don't like Chaos either. However that's not a valid reason to exclude those armies. As for Tau, their armylist has not even left "preliminary draft" status. If the 40k list isn't acceptable we're free to mould them to the image we like. That's what I did to the Sisters and others did to Necrons.

> There
> shouldn't be a C'Tan army either IMO. the C'Tan are dead,
> dead, dead.
> They make the Slaan look lively and active, and they're so
> degenerate and
> slumping as to be more myth than fact.

Depends. If somebody would come up with a balanced and decent C'tan list I would add it. If somebody would like to use it, he could. If somebody hated it, he didn't have to use it at all. However, I do think the C'tan should be made a "normal" race, like Slann _if_ someone decides to make a list for them. I won't do that.

> Lastly, using your
> own argument,
> if we don't have to accept the older fluff, we don't have to
> accept the
> new stuff either.
>
> Josh R
>
> "No matter where you go, there you are." B.Bonzai
>
>

Jyrki Saari
Received on Mon Nov 25 2002 - 07:51:40 UTC