Re: Chaos army book

From: Toma Diener <peyoterattle_at_...>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 19:06:25 -0000

--- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com, "EPICentre Webmaster" <gambit_at_n...> wrote:
> The way I see it is as follows:
>
> Khorne, god of war, and slaughter hates Tzeentch, god of manipulation
> and magic
> Slaanesh, god of fulfilment and desire hates Nurgle, god of despair
and disease.

Sure: that is more or less the new rationale GW is following: it just
isn't how it was originally set up, and has a different 'in-game'
logic than the original 'meta-game' rationale.
>
> They are both diametric, Khorne is not an opposite of Slaanesh, in fact
> they even have some simularitys.

One could presuppose that the similarities are, in fact, the reason
for the Animosity.

 Tzeench is not an opposite of Nurgle,
> in fact they both believe in change, in one way or the other.


ActuallY , No. Nurgle is Stagnant and Stanation: the lack of chanege
in a metaphysical sense. That was the (admittedly nebulous)
philosophy that led to the writer's original conception of the
Oppositions.


My original point restated more succinctly: The original oppositions
have valid meta-game and in-game reasons for their existence. The
'new' oppositions have some valid reasons from an in-game stand point
also...

However: I personally will not use the 'new' oppositions even if they
succeed in a vote and become default : I am too convinced of the
original arrangement. Moreover, I will be somewhat annoyed if the
'original' concept is negated without a real precedent.

So. what is the best thing to do?
 (none of these were presented as options on the poll, and should be IMO)

1) Do we eliminate all oppositions

2) have all Chaos powers as opposing as a compromise?

3) have all animosities as optional rules only (that feels like a bit
of a cop-out to me)

The solution that I find most appealing from a 'gordian knot'
standpoint would be:

4) have animosity determined randomly at the beginning of each game:
if a Chaos player is using 2 powers, there is a 50% (or 75% depending
on how you figure odds) chance of animosity, 3 powers 75% chance (or
100% that 2 of three are currently opposing)and 4 powers 100% that at
least 2 (or 100% that both random sets of 2 powers) would currently be
considered as 'opposing'

I like this option because 1) it doesn't mean that either of our
chains of reasoning are discounted and 2) Chaos means Flux. The
'permanent' Oppositions (either way) would be a "Law of Chaos". This
new rule would mean Chaos would be, well: Chaotic.

I'd be willing to go with any of those options if you really can't
abide the original fluff.
Received on Sun Apr 03 2005 - 19:06:25 UTC