Miller, Chris wrote:
>
> > > ----------> I would defintiely call you a "fluff violator" - YOU
> > > should know better...
> >
> > No smiley?
> --------> I needed one? You couldn't tell? OK - 8 )
Ah, much better! =)
> > 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.
> >
> ---------> The same army isn't a problem. The mixed detachment thing
> would be a bigger deal. It would be more fun if we had some kind of
> carryover of the animosity thing from 40K or fantasy, but alas, there
> is none.
I'd like to point out here that E40k has the *exact*
same animosity rules as WH40k, it just limits it to the
detachment level. Don't know what the animosity rules are
like in WHFB.
> I've tried limiting myself to say, 2 powers in an army, but
> there are too many cool units and we play with too many points.
Yeah... Plus, with the current army lists, you NEED
to take certain powers in order to cover basic neccessities.
Frex, want airpower? you need Tzeentch. Want arty? you need
Khorne or Nurgle. etc. The last time I made an army I was
trying to get it down to a 1-power army (Tzeentch, of course),
but I realized I didn't have the models or stands yet. =(
> > > -------> 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.
> >
> ----------> There's really not a flavor difference between marine
> chapters (they are theoretically on the same side),
Well, there is but it's not reflected in the army lists.
That was what I was getting at. Space Wolves are very different
in character from the Ultras. BAs suffer from the blood-thing.
DAs prefer fast attack groups and have lots of terminator suits.
The flavor is still there, even if there's nothing in the army
list that forces you to follow it.
> > 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.
> >
> --------> Yep, they did lose the IG stuff in a way, but if you have
> traitor IG units, I wouldn't have a problem with that - comes up in
> the fluff all the time : ) Some of it is different for marines, sure,
> but your marine force will not look too different from a loyalist
> unit.
Well, it would play differently (for me, anyway). And
I'd probably approach it with a slightly different mindset, at
least. Blood for the Blood God, and all that...
Mind you, I don't think that a pure-CSM army is really
all that playable, unless you allow the Chaos player to take
Vindicators, Whirlwinds, (which they should have access to
anyway) and Thunderhawks.
> ----------> Again, I would never tell someone else "Your army is
> wrong" unless I saw big army list errors, but things that are way out
> of wack with the game background do make me wonder.
OK. Of course, way out of wack is subjective...
> > 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 picked that up the week it came out. They do add a lot of
> unaligned chapters, which is kind of going back to where the hardbacks
> were ages ago, and that's great, especially in WH40K, but for Epic I
> would expect some daemon engines, or daemons, or beastmen, or daemon
> princes or something. Why limit yourself?
Concept army? Maybe you want to mimic your daemon-less
WH40k army? Higher strategy rating? I don't know. I just
found it curious that you regard this as being against the
established background.
> Many people like a
> particular army in part because of the units unique to that army, and
> rightly so - otherwise we could just make a generic army list and say
> the race you choose is just "color". So pick a few things that tell
> even a color blind person you have a force aligned with Chaos...
Hmmmm... Chaos Lord on Jugger. Sorcerer on Disc. Of
course, all my marines are of the old Chaos variety, so it's
fairly obvious that I'm not playing loyalists anyway...
Why do people pick the armies that they do? Ruling
out the power-gamers, I wouldn't say it's the units, but
rather (at the beginning) the overall look & feel of the army,
which includes the units but isn't limited to just that. My
friend picked Eldar when we were starting out because he
likes fast maneuverable forces. I picked Chaos because I
liked the idea of daemons in a sci-fi world. But with time
(at least for me), I realized that Chaos in general is just
a great army. Wonderful background, cool stuff. So I
can field a purely marine force, and still feel like I'm
playing Chaos. Daemons are a crutch. =)
> > 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.
> >
> -------> Well the loyalist player is also playing a bunch of evil
> bastards, most likely.
Not in the current version of the 40k universe...
> (You probably liked to play evil alignments in D&D , too)
> : )
Not at all! But I do like playing thieves...
> > > -------> 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?" =)
> >
> -----------> Ok, how about this:
> Given the sizeable number of marines taking up space in my house, and
> the recent acquisiton of Fulgrim to complete the set, I'm building all
> 4 SM/TL chapters (already had World Eaters & DG, just doing the other
> 2).
What? No Thousand Sons?!? Heretic!
> And if that wasn't enough, I'm using Normal Marines ENTIRELY to make
> them....
Oooh... you're a special brand of Heretic... Expect
a visit from the daemonic inquisition...
>(I'd used normals before as a mix-in to extend the CSM's to a
> full 15 stands worth, but now I'm not even pretending)
>
> Face the Wrath of he EMPEROR'S CHILDREN !!!
Yeah, like that's a threat. =)
I've got the 1000 Sons and DG legions (15 stands each),
but I've found them to be pretty useless when it comes to E40k.
They all look like tac troops with different paint jobs, and
I don't like saying, "OK, this bunch here is bezerkers, and
these guys are Noise Marines, oh, and this group is 1000 Sons."
I have no problem with proxies, but I like them to be different
from everything else on the table so I know what they are at
a glance. So anyway, a little while ago I picked up 30 stands
worth of unbased CSMs in an internet sale... pretty sweet. I
briefly considered filling out the other 2 SM/TL legions, but
I don't have the other Primarchs so forget that. What I am
going to do is base a bunch up with 2 HWs (for noise marines
and the like) and the rest with no HWs (assault troops). Now
all I need to have a decent E40k army is old-style Predators...
> Chris Miller
>
> (And I've actually added a plague tower, some questors, and some
> hell-knights to my forces. More to come.)
So you didn't have a tower to begin with? You're
only digging yourself in deeper here...
Scott Shupe
shupes_at_... shupes@...
http://www.rpi.edu/~shupes
***********************************************************************
"The only thing to fear is fearlessness" - REM
Received on Fri Mar 27 1998 - 21:33:02 UTC