Re: [Epic] Re:Trolls n Minotaurs

From: Scott Shupe <shupes_at_...>
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 11:21:58 -0400

duckrvr_at_... wrote:
>
> > So what's your point? Every army has it's strengths. Chaos
> >doesn't get very good war engines and has a very limited selection of
> >tanks, PLUS the number of armor detachments you can have in your
> >army is limited, which is not true for anyone else.
>
> Um, I think chaos is fine on war engines. All the titans, the Banelord,

        Yeah, those are OK, but nothing better than the Imps get.
And the Imps also get stuff like the SH tanks, Ordinati, etc.

> the Plague towers, the Slaanesh titans . . .

        I haven't used the tower yet, but it looks like it pretty
much sucks now. Armor of 5+, no shields, and a move of 10cm. Might
as well have your guys walk.

        And the points cost on the slaanesh titans is screwed up.
Questors might be OK, but I can't see anyone fielding Subjugators.

        Chaos has war engines, I was just saying compared to other
armies (with the exception of the bugs), they aren't too wonderful.

> The armor restriction does suck, however. On the plus side, they can take
> fliers as CSM units,

        Um, how?

> and Slaanesh knights. As a matter of fact, all the
> Daemon engines are listed under CSM units. So they can take a rather
> well-rounded force and still get a 5 strategy rating.

        True, but that's true of most armies anyway. AFAIK there's
nothing in the SM army you couldn't take in a normal SM detachment.

        And doing so requires a not insubstantial overhead cost
since you have to buy your CSM main force before you can take the
support stuff. Which, as I said, is something other armies don't
have to worry about.

        I'm not trying to bitch a lot here, I was merely pointing
out in my previous post that chaos may be good at close combat, but
it also has it's share of weaknesses.

Scott
shupes_at_...
Received on Mon May 19 1997 - 15:21:58 UTC