Miller, Chris wrote:
>
> > Are deathstrikes a main force unit in E40k? Considering
> > that they were support-card only in SM/TL, it seems like they
> > should be only available under the arty support section. Might
> > make fielding them a little more limiting.
>
> --------> I think they're on the support side of the table, but even
> then, the main force options are artillery, which most IG players are
> going to have anyway. Max in one detach is about 10 - not much of a
> limit.
Well, it's better than nothing. In order to get those
10 'strikes you have to buy 10 arty pieces... not exactly cheap.
In a 2000 pt battle, even 5 arties + 5 deathstrikes would be a
major chunk of your points. And there's no suppport slots
leftover for Hydras or guardsmen. So that's even more points
spent just guarding them from fast assaulters and airstrikes.
> > Mmmmm, I'm pretty sure that according to AoI, even normally
> > there are multiple Levs behind the lines. So I don't see a problem
> > with sticking a handful of them on the board. Rules-wise, in SM/TL
> > you'd be daft to only field one since if it pops you're got BIG
> > problems.
> >
> ---------> AOI did mention that if you had multiples, they could hand
> off command if one was nuked, but it also mentioned each one was
> something like a regimental HQ, so you wouldn't expect tons of them in
> an area as small as the table represents.
I got the impression that they generally served as
regimental HQs, but didn't have to. But my AoI is somewhere
far away right now... =(
> > The main problem I have with fluff arguments is (1) fluff
> > is not rules, it's color text and means nothing, at best it gives
> > you an idea of what a 'typical' force is made of but who says you
> > always have to play a typical army? And (2) (more importantly)
> > different people have different interpretations of the fluff. As
> > an example, in WH40k I've heard arguments both for and against the
> > all-aspect eldar army, both based on the background. Which side
> > is right?
> >
> ---------> Means nothing?
Once the game starts, yes. And looking at the
fluff when constructing your army is your perogative (I do
it myself), and I see no reason to force my preferences on
whoever I'm gaming with (I'd probably mention it in passing
and leave it at that). If it was "right" or "wrong", it
would be a part of the rules. I am especially forgiving in
this, the E40k era, where the books that come with the game
give you no good conception of the background with which to
base such descisions on.
Another "interpretation" example: the chaos
animosities. Khorne hates Slaanesh, Tzeentch hates Nurgle.
Now by the rules (E40k), you can't put daemons from two
opposing powers in the same detachment. But what about
the rest? Should you be able to stick Contagions and
Silver Towers in the same detachment? Bezerkers and Noise
Marines? What about merely having, say, Cannons of Khorne
and Hell-Knights in the same army? Some would say NO,
some yes. Which side is right? According to the rules,
you can do these things. Should I not, just because some
people will disapprove and call me a "fluff violator"?
> So would you pay for "generic unrealistic
> science fantasy rules" with "generic unrealistic minis"? I'd bet not,
> Chaos Boy! All that codex stuff and background is what makes it
> different from all those other games out there. How about a SPace Wolves
> Army with no close combat troops? A Goff army with none? An evil sunz
> army with no bikes or buggies? A Khorne army with all ranged attacks?
> These things are just wrong, and I would say that based on fluff. Maybe
> as a one-off thing they would be interesting, but as a normal army they
> would be odd, to say the least.
Odd, but as long as the person isn't seeking to
do these things merely for his own gain (perhaps he/she
just wants to try something different), I have no problem
with it.
> > > Cheese I would reserve for extreme things like Ork armies with
> > > no boyz - just nobz and skarboyz, IG armies with no normal infantry,
> > > Chaos which is entirely marines and imperial equipment but no
> > > daemons,
> > > that kind of thing.
> >
> > What's wrong with no daemons?
>
> ---------> They printed that army list at the front of the book as
> "Imperials".
This isn't a fluff-breaker. There are plenty of
un-aligned Chaos Legions that won't neccessarily have
daemons. Even aligned troops won't be summoning daemons
for every single battle. Even without daemons, Chaos
still has plenty of its own flavor - the beasties are not
the defining trait of the army.
Really, Chaos without daemons is MORE limiting
that with - you have to rely on Bezerkers and Beastmen for
assaults. So I fail to see how you can call this cheesy
in any sense of the word.
> (thought this one might draw you out...)
It's not like it's tough to draw me out or anything...
Scott Shupe
shupes_at_... shupes@...
http://www.rpi.edu/~shupes
***********************************************************************
"Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!"
Received on Fri Mar 27 1998 - 15:08:50 UTC