Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: New file uploaded to netepic

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:35:22 -0500

Hi!

deaconblue3_at_... wrote:

> 'Ere we go again! Amazing how somethings never seem to go away isn't it?
> Anyway, I'm one of those who likes to get some more for Chaos,
> especially CSMs. Now, for my take on things, I'll try and go issue by
> issue.

Problem with chaos is that the "GW view" has mutated over time. I
usually follow the real old fluff, but I acknowledge that things have
changed.

> 1. Transports. Rhinos, LRs, etc should only be available and
> usable by CSMs. I just can't really see Demons or the monstrous critters
> (trolls, Minotaurs) getting in or out of them easily, or willingly. Like
> Ogryns, they shouldn't be able to use them (Ogryns don't like dark
> cramped places, like rhinos). Rhinos should be part of the Chaos list,
> available for use by CSMs only.

Ultimately this is a "fluff" issue. From a game mechanics point of view
there has never been a restriction on "what" a rhino can carry. The
problem with the rhino is although it is said it is a space marine
vehicle, many other armies use it. I agree in principle that rhinos
should be for marines, but what to do with other armies that use them?

There is an easy resolution though. For IG change all rhinos to
chimeras, make that their official transport. For squats use
Ironshields. This would keep rhinos as marine only.

> 2. The infamous T-Hawk issue. Well, I do think Chaos should get
> them, but at an increased point cost (x2 at least), with the restriction
> it be used solely by CSMs. No transporting Demons or monstrous types.
> Also, they should only be able to get 1 for every 1000 points or so of
> CSMs (and CSMs only. Points for the others don't count).

Quite frankly I have never seen what the big deal is with this units and
chaos access to it. I know how to use it effectively, but also know how
to counter it as well. If we extend the above logic, this unit is marine
only, so only marine stands could use it.

> 3. Chaos can't get everything in the Imp lists. No Imperators,
> no SHVs (imagine a Chaos army with a CI or Leviathan, plus Shadowswords
> and baneblades, YIKES!), and much of the "newer" parts of the Marine list
> are also unavailable.

What chaos marines can get is on a table, what IG stuff cultist can get
is limited to the PDF list.

> 4. The "combination" issue. Chaos and the Imps are supposed to
> be the big nasties of the universe. Chaos and Imps should match up
> almost equally against each other. That's the fundamental theorem of how
> the 40K universe is. Eldar are good, but lack umbers. Orks are
> mediocre, but have lots of numbers. Squats are somewhere in between.
> Bugs are nasty, running the gambit across the spectrum. Never used or
> played against Slann, but they should be in the same category as the
> Eldar.
> The Imperials generally use combined arms, drawing from the
> various organizations to form a force. IG with Marines and Titan
> support. (I still don't think the TG should be separate army). Yes,
> they do operate individually on a regular basis, but the "norm" is for
> combined arms. Chaos is similar. The four powers have their own unique
> flavor, and the combine to form Black Crusades, or raids on worlds. It's
> the nature of the beast as it were.
> I still find the issue of combining lists somewhat off center.
> the issue I think is not the lists, but the players involved. As Peter
> has pointed out on several occasions, there is no truly "invincible" army
> out there. Since I started playing, I have always played a combined
> IG/SM army. I lose as often as I win. Same applies for when I play
> Chaos. Chaos needs more support, with only the Khorne Demon engines, and
> the only fliers being Silver Towers, Fire Lord, and Doom Wings (none of
> which are all that great). With out these additions, you can usually
> defeat a Chaos army with lots of artillery, pounding them to bits before
> they ever get in CC. I know, I've done it. Also, Chaos really doesn't
> have an AA unit, so they are highly vulnerable to air power.
> Play balance is all fine and well, when it makes sense.
> Sometimes however, play balance gets sacrificed to fit the concepts. If
> you want true play balance, play Heresy era only, using only the Imperial
> lists against other Imperial lists. Or just play Eldar vs Eldar. That's
> play balance. still, even if using identical army lists, play balance is
> skewed by the players themselves. Experienced vs inexperienced, or just
> a difference in styles alters the balance. A good player can win no
> matter the armies being used under most circumstances. Random dice also
> factor in too don't forget.
> No offense intended here, but I see most of the arguments against
> something as whining over an inability to defeat certain armies (or
> players). Changing the rules so you can win on a regular basis is much
> more cheezy than using what's in the army lists IMO. Not that I am
> saying that is the case, I don't know for sure, but that is how it
> appears at times. OK, I think I've run my corse for now....

Well put. We all come from different backgrounds and have a slightly
different take on how to play the game. But as I mentioned before we
tend to narrow our perceptions of the game to our experience within one
gaming group. The members of a gaming group adapt to each others playing
style pretty quickly and sometimes this leads to playing in the same
way. If my friend "X" does this I do that. Beleive me there is nothing
more of a shock from playing in another totally different group to learn
that so called "standard" tactics are nothing of the kind and that
nothing is infallible.

This gives me an idea, we should start a series of talks that revolve
around, "how do you handle this" situation. For example, one could
express a particular case that presents a problem to deal with during a
game in tactical terms. Things termed "cheesy" would be good example.
Then everyone could input how to counter this. You'd be surprised what
people come up with!

Peter
Received on Tue Jan 16 2001 - 22:35:22 UTC