Hi!
True. As the original GW rules stand chaos can bring some IG support
cards. Problem is they never specified which. Now that we have a PDF
list they can select from there.
Hehe, I've been playing for those same 12+ years and have consistently
won using "pure" armies. Space marines, IG only can and will win if used
correctly. Of course it is more difficult, no doubt. If you are not used
to using pure armies you can get your butt kicked in quite readily.
Unfortunately GW intended for them them to be used as a mixed force.
Problem is its too easy to win that way if your opponents haven't played
all that much. This is a good army for a novice or relatively
inexperienced player to start with.
The particular issue of "allies" or mixed forces is best left with
individual groups. Some would consider SM and IG all the same army,
others would not. While the books are "stand alone: in the sense they
can be played that way, I will keep away from categorically stating they
can or cannot be used in a certain way.
Peter
quester wrote:
> well just to say "its always been known that chaos can field any
> Imp.suport card as their own" from the start of all epic games and the
> Imp. armies can use any Imp. units IG, SM, SoF,TDF,etc. They
> were never ment fight alone and if they did It would be like the army
> fighting without the air force. They work better as a team and are
> only OK alone.
>
> in 12 + years of play I ve never seen a player field only one part of
> the imp. forces and win a game
>
> making them stand alone armys is a new Net Epic thing that started
> only the gods knows were.
>
>
>
>
> Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> hehe, the famous t-hawk for chaos question rises yet again! For
> the record it is not our idea that they have them. That was one of
> those famous GW rulings. Of course being who we are we can change
> that if need be.
>
> There are several things to keep in mind. A lot of players dont
> even use fliers. Therefore the t-hawk for chaos issue is moot.
> Second those who do, use AA units to defend making their
> successful deployment very dubious. I've played this a million
> times with the flier netepic rules. The t-hawk has lost much of
> its impact on the game due to the advent of AA units. Many players
> just don't risk it. Granted before the advent of such units it was
> a problem. Also if your opponent does NOT bring AA unts and you
> bring t-hawks when playing chaos he's most likely dead. Question
> is: is that a reflection on the rules or the opponents poor planning?
>
> Regarding the chaos army list, what has changed? Nothing really.
> All the "core" accepted rules are there. The only difference are
> all the OPTIONAL add-ons. Again I stress the optional part because
> if you dont like them you dont need to use them NOR can they be
> used against you. Optional rules need agreement by both parties.
>
> On the arguement that chaos is really a close combat army, is it
> really? I can devise chaos armies with no optional elements and
> play it successfully as a non-close combat army. Now this brings
> up another old question: "should the chaos list be one list or is
> it really several?". I am very used to a combined chaos army. That
> is a chaos army with demons, cultists and chaos marines. It is a
> very hard combination to beat since I can bring the best of
> shooting and close combat to bear.
>
> I think with chaos it is more of a problem of combination of
> certain elements that WHAT they can get. Our last discussion on
> this resulted in leaving chaos as is, which means you can combine
> all these different arms. Of course the other question is-is this
> balanced? My slant is no. As it stands the chaos lists are just
> like combining SM and IG, too good.
>
> If chaos were to be divided I think it would be along the lines of
> "marines" and "non-marines". I think it is the chaos marines,
> their primarchs and their equipment that induces that unbalancing
> element in the current chaos lists. In essence should chaos
> marines be on their own? You be the judge.
>
> The bottom line for now is that chaos remains unchanged, all
> additions are optional. The matter to debate is that the chaos
> army lists as original intended and presented are balanced or not.
>
> You decide.
>
> Peter
>
> Luca Lettieri wrote:
>
>>
>>> Woha,
>>>
>>> This is really an issue for you, isn't it....
>>>
>>> Well, I must say I agree with you on this one Luca. Anyway, it'll
>>> just be an optional unit!!!!
>>
>>
>> It's an issue because I've seen it happen countless times, and ALMOST
>> ALWAYS for chaos. I don't know why, it just happens again and again.
>>
>> With other armies there's hardly any problem. I mean, look at
>> imperial ones: everyone agrees that it would be pretty stupid for any
>> given imperial commander not to use a "joint army", but since mixing
>> SM and IG would result in horrible cheese, no one gives a damn about
>> logic and settles for play balance (as it should be).
>>
>> Then we get to chaos and...
>> "chaos should get Thunderhaws, after all, normal marines have them so
>> why not chaos?"
>> "chaos should be able to teleport terminators into battle, after all,
>> normal marines can do that so why not chaos?"
>> "chaos cultists should have heavy artillery, after all IG armies have
>> them and cultists are renegade IG"
>>
>> and so on and so on. Hello? If logic gets dropped to preserve balance
>> in every other case, why chao!
>>
>> s should be treated any differently?
>>
>>
>> Luca Lettieri
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com <mailto:netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>
>
> RuneSmith Studio "we bring the art to war"
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Personal Address <http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/> - Get
> email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> eGroups Sponsor
> [Click Here!]
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=169066.1281467.2883016.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700059081:N/A=560434/*http://cgi.timeinc.net/cgi-bin/magsubs/cc/subs/ecompanynowcc1?EFFORTKEY=ECAAQQ1>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Received on Tue Jan 16 2001 - 22:19:40 UTC