Miller, Chris wrote:
>
> > You honestly think that it's wrong of me to
> > include elements of Tzeentch and Nurgle in the same army?
> >
> > ---------> The same army isn't a problem. The mixed detachment thing
> > would be a bigger deal.
Concur. In SM2, one of the things I disliked was that you pretty much
had
to have a mix if you wanted a large fight. Only having 4 CSM companies
available
with no repeats was a pain. But now in E40K, it's no longer neccessary
to have
such a mixture.
> > ----------> There's really not a flavor difference between marine
> > chapters (they are theoretically on the same side), but it seems like
> > there ought to be one between marines and Chaos.
<excuse me for shouting here>
THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT ABOUT THE HORUS HERESY!
One side thought there was, the other side that there wasn't :)
> > --------> 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.
Depends: From an E30K era unit, you're correct. But from an E40K era
unit, it looks mighty different:
a) They're mainly on square bases :)
b) Whirlwinds look different
c) Land Raiders look different
d) Land Speeders look different
So much so that even when using E40K SM lists for organisation, to show
a "Unmixed Chaos" CSM unit post-heresy, I've had people ask me what the
heck
my army was.
> > -------> 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?
Some of us like CSMs in particular. And like fighting Heresy era
battles.
You know, Assault on the Emperors Palace, Titan vs Titan, Marine vs
Marine,
that sort of thing. Though even then, there were plenty of Daemons
about.
Also Trolls, Minotaurs, Chaos Warbands (which were...?) Chaos Squats,
etc
> > 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.
Of course, isn't that the whole point? It's just that I'd add
"Hypocritical"
to the description of loyalists (forces that is, not players).
Summary:
The Fluff and Histories show that all-CSM armies, no Daemons or other
Chaos stuff are perfectly legit.
Ditto for an mixture of Chaos and CSMs (typical of SM2).
Ditto for the completely Chaos army, with few if any CSMs.
OTOH.... an army consisting of nothing but Ordinati would be right out.
One consisting of a few ratling snipers, a few lieutenants, and 200
Siege Artillery pieces would be right out. An army of nothing but Ork
Nobz would be right out. etc etc
--
aebrain_at_... <> <> How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain| xxxxx Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia | xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
abrain_at_... o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo oo oo oo
By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale
Received on Fri Mar 27 1998 - 01:44:52 UTC