Re: [NetEpic ML] Some Comments about Chaos 5.0

From: talos402000 <tamah0me_at_...> <tamah0me_at_...>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 20:28:56 -0000

> Yippieee! Someone who read and has specific suggestions! What a
wonderful change - thank you!

You're welcome!

> >What are the stats for Daemon Princes, Sorcerer of Chaos
> Undivided, and the mark of Chaos Undivided?
>
> There aren't any. AFAIK a Mark is a sign of favor given by one of
the major Chaos Powers, and Chaos Undivided has no such single
source - it's a collection of all the minor unaligned entities.
Hence, no such Greater Daemon or Mark.
>
> There may well be Princes & Sorcerers that don't follow one of the
major Powers, but as I've got it set up the Chaos Undivided is made
up of the Marines. I didn't want to add daemons to the marine lists.
This will change in the next incarnation.

   In the current Chaos Codex any legion may be led by a daemon
prince and and in the novel Storm of Iron we see a Iron Warrior
Warsmith reach aptheosis and become a daemon prince by capturing a
space marine genetorium and sending all the gene seed to Abbadon to
make hordes of new Chaos space marines. Also, both Lorgar of the
Word Bearers and Perturabo of the Iron Warriors become daemon
princes at the end of the Heresy. In the codex on page 65 there is a
picture of a daemon prince of the black legion.

   Also the codex introduces minor daemons of chaos undevided called
furies. They are used as hunting beasts by the traitor legions.

   And there is a specific mark of Chaos undivided available for the
non-power specific legions.
 
   So fluff and current rules-wise this is all justified.


> >I really like the new 5.0 army list but I didn't like the
> animosity rules or the limiting of chaos rewards for having
> different powers in the same army. If that's what everybody wants
fine, but one penalty rule should be enough. Not two.
>
> True, but animosity can be avoided. Take a Marine Century from
each Power and you've got every type of support, with no worries
about animosity. The card penalty represents the difficulties in
bringing the widely-differing units together, while animosity
represents the problems in keeping them from each other's throats
once together. When I redesign the army lists we can look at this
again.

We need a vote on this. One penalty rule or two.


> >Why do Tzeentch daemon engines get chaos rewards and no others do?
>
> Tzeentch is the sorcerer dude, and apparently GW thought alters to
him (Daemon Engines) should have a more direct connection to the raw
power of Chaos, e.g. Chaos Rewards.

This should be dropped or extended to all daemon engines. It's only
fair. Tzeentch already gets a horde of new Daemons.


> >Does the astral hound count as a minor daemon?
>
> Probably. I should go back to the core rules and define "Daemon"
or "Extra-dimensional" as a body type. That would also better define
that the ability "Daemon Hunter" could affect.

Cool.


> >Does the phantom engine count as a daemon engine (if not, it
> shoould)?
>
> Nope - Daemons Engines are alters to and have significant
connections with a specific Power. Phantom engines are more generic
heavy artillery. They're also a new unit I read about & added, so
there'll probably be a vote as to include it or not - Chaos should
be lacking in the long-range firepower department, after all.

I don't know. They are definetly supernatural in origin, just like
daemon engines. Also I thought it would be cool if the independent
legions got their own daemon engines. Again, this justified in the
fluff where the Iron Warriors legion uses daemonic seige engines to
bring down an imperial fortress.


> >Why can't the Word Bearers not get Cultists? I would think that
> that would be right up their alley.
>
> Got me - I added the limitation from somewhere, and I presume it's
from fluff.

Hmm. This should probably be dropped.

> >No Leman Russ. This takes away from the flavor of the Chaos army
list (and they've never got it anywhere in any set of rules I've
ever seen).
>
> Ok. I added it so that a cultist-based Chaos army could have some
armor, and it's probably the most common tank in the galaxy. Again,
it was a personal add-on and it'll get voted on.

Make a seperate Cultist Army list with greater daemons and daemon
princes as special cards and no daemon primarchs. Also, chaos marine
forces would be treated as allies, with no more than 25% of points
going to them.

> >Get rid of the Thunderhawk and replace it with the Dreadclaw
> assult boat (thats more in line with the fluff). Not as fast or as
heavily armed, but better armored and able to carry the same amount
of troops.
>
> Well, this is one of the more entertaining arguements in the Chaos
arena. In this corner we have the "Chaos had 'em in the Horus Heresy
so they should have 'em now" stance, weighing in at 10,000 years of
constant warfare. In this corner we have the "common sense and
delicate machinery in the Eye of Chaos, and blasted Space Marine
clones" stance, slightly less defensable but much more
argumentative. Who will win? Find out after these messages when we
return to the Great Thunderchicken Debate! Cluck, cluck, baGook!

Get rid of it. The Chaos space marines should be dark reflections of
their loyalist bretheren, but not exactly the same. Drop all the new
and variant equipment like the predator annihilator and land speeder
typhoon, but keep the basic equipment.

> >The basilisk should be limited to the Iron Warriors (1 support
> detachment, 1 per company but not a special card).
>
> The way I had it, if a player took Chaos Undivided they needed a
variety of units. They didn't have most of the daemons & weird-
special-ability-troops, so they needed something else. I gave 'em
artillery.

Good. This adds tactical flexibility. No one wants to play an army
thats good at only one thing. Plus, I noticed that all the other
army lists are well-ballanced with both fast attack, heavy
firepower, and close assult choices.

> >One support detachment per company of the Iron Warriors should be
able to take the mark of Khorne.
>
> If the Iron Warriors follow Khorne, I should put 'em into the
Khorne list. I don't play 40k and I haven't read the new Chaos
Codex - what's the background on this?

Its not in the current codex, but in the fluff and playtest rules
one squad could bear the mark of khorne. This does not mean the Iron
Warriors serve Khorne. They only serve Perurabo.

> Definitely. Thanks!
> -Yar

Again, your welcome. I know what it's like to prepare something like
this and no one says anything.
Received on Fri Feb 28 2003 - 20:28:56 UTC