RE: [Epic] house rules (was Re: General Enquiry)

From: Miller, Chris <CMiller_at_...>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 11:28:28 -0600

> 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.
>
>
--------> I goofed - looked last night when I got home and they aren't
support units - they are main force artillery. And they're support units
for IG Armor detachments (!)

> > >
> > >
> > ---------> 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.
--------> Yeah, the fluff factor is pretty low in them. I think we all
wished for less fluff in many GW products, but I think we were expecting
something like rules to replace it, not to just have a shorter book at
the same price.

> 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"?
>
----------> I would defintiely call you a "fluff violator" - YOU should
know better...
(I would never NOT play someone because of this, I would just be
suspicious that they were exploring some new kind of cheese, and I'd be
waiting for the other shoe to drop: "OK, so you have 6 ordinatus and no
titans?...Ok,..."<thinks to self what's this guy up to?>. Heck I've used
a land raider company painted up as space wolves for years (before they
were especially well-defined) and I'm not even sure if they have LR
companies in their fluff. I also, however have the infantry to go with
them.)


> > 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.
> > > 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.
>
-------> OK, so if your chaos force is all marines and imperial
equipment with no daemons or engines, where does the flavor come in? A
different color paint job? (Though if the all-traitor chaos force was to
take on blood angels, you might not even have that, depending on the
marine chapter in on the chaos side...) I guess my beef would be that
with all of the options available to Chaos, to restrict oneself to
duplicating another armies equipment seems awfully boring.

> 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.
>
---------> It's not "cheezy" in the usual sense where we mean
exploring/exploiting the limits of the rules & point values, it's just
"out of character". I understand wanting to tinker with things, but I
still think the fluff either gives you something to build on or
something to push against "These Space Wolves are all heavy weapons
troops because..." At least they thought about it in relation to the
"standard" concept of the Wolves.

> > (thought this one might draw you out...)
>
> It's not like it's tough to draw me out or anything...
>
> Scott Shupe
>
-------> Nah, but the only people I seem to really lock horns with on
long involved threads are you or Mr Looney, and it hadn't happened for a
while.

Chris Miller
Received on Fri Mar 27 1998 - 17:28:28 UTC