Miller, Chris wrote:
>
[Fluff Wars]
> > 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...
No smiley? You honestly think that it's wrong of me to
include elements of Tzeentch and Nurgle in the same army? That
doing so is cheesy? (your definition, not the standard power-
gaming def) Then I don't think I've *ever* played a non-cheesy
Chaos army, aside from when I was first starting out and didn't
actually own any Nurgle or Slaanesh stuff.
> > > > 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?
Point the first: where is the difference in flavor between
Ultras, DAs, BAs, and SWs? By the standard army lists, they're all
exactly the same. So why play the puppies over the smurfs? Just
because you liked the chapter colors? "Flavor" is in your head as
well as in the army lists. The flavor of a chaos army, with or
without daemons, is rooted in the knowledge that you're playing
bad-ass traitors from a long-gone era. Daemons are cool, but not
neccessary.
Point the second: the chaos list (minus daemons) is not the
same as the imperial lists. Cultists do not even remotely equal the
IG (no arty, no tank companies, no HW troops). Even if you focus just
on the marine aspect, there's a number of differences: Vindicators,
Thunderhawks, Land Speeders, Jump Packs, Juggers, Discs, Bezerkers,
Noise Marine termies, loose vs relatively rigid army list structure,
cooler unit names.
Point the third: getting back to the original point (daemons/
not daemons), this is exactly what I mean about fluff interpretations.
Your interpretation of the fluff is different from mine, for whatever
reasons. Perhaps we're subscribing to different versions of it (old
40k? old Epic? current 40k?), or perhaps we've just read the same
thing and formed different conclusions... This is why I largely listen
to, and then disregard, arguments that are based on fluff and not rules.
Hmmmm. Actually, that was getting back to MY original point.
As for your thing about having no daemons in a chaos army, I would
suggest reading the 40k Chaos Codex (if you haven't already). It puts
much less emphasis on the 4 aligned chapters than ROC did, and makes
the all-chaos marine army very plausible. Especially if you're playing
an all Night Lord army, for instance.
> 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.
But there's nothing wrong with it. And the Chaos player is
still playing a bunch of evil bastards from beyond realspace, which
has a certain appeal in its own right.
> > 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.
I have no problem with appyling this to yourself (like I
said, I limit my army selection to coincide with my version of
the background), I just don't like the idea of telling someone
else is *wrong* because they don't have the same interpretation.
What about the flip side of the no-daemon case? I've
occaisionally thought of fielding an ALL daemon army, with nothing
but daemons and daemon engines (including WEs, but probably not
the standard Imp titans). Would that seem wrong to you?
> > > (thought this one might draw you out...)
> >
> > It's not like it's tough to draw me out or anything...
> >
> -------> 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.
Phhhh. All you had to do is post something like, "What's
with those dang useless Plague Towers in SM/TL anyway?" =)
Scott Shupe
shupes_at_... shupes@...
http://www.rpi.edu/~shupes
***********************************************************************
"You can't throw me to the lions! I'm Charlton Heston!" - Lard
Received on Fri Mar 27 1998 - 18:50:03 UTC