RE: [Epic] Chaos strategy rating

From: Miller, Chris <CMiller_at_...>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 11:17:54 -0500

>>> I guess it can be argued either way. What does everyone
>>>think? Whatever the result, it should be balanced. After all,
>>>the Imperium has developed Razorbacks, Whirlwinds, Land
>>>Speeders, etc. since the Heresy; I find it hard to believe
>>>that the forces of Chaos would just be sitting still. They
>>>are depraved, not stupid.
>>
>>The problem is not here, in fact the Daemons (Demons?) Engines are
>>Daemons... And Daemons lower the strategy rating of a Chaos army.
>>This can be explained by the fact that Daemons don't act as the Space
>>Marines, they are evil entities of the Warp and can't be compared
>>with the perverted finest warriors of the Imperium.
>
>I agree. IMO, a marine army (chaos or otherwise) is an army
>consisting entirely of marines and vehicles manned by marines. Daemon
>engines are not manned by marines, so they aren't marine units.
>
>David

----> Everyone's been spewing on this for a while so I have to stick
my nose in. The basic disagreement here is "what is a Chaos Marine army"
The answer depends on whether you go by the heading on the army list,
or whether you go by the name of the individual unit. If you give the
fluff
some weight, I guess it could be by unit name, but that leads to this
question:
If "ork units" can use the hitch a ride rule for ork vehicles, what
about
"gretchen"? They're on the ork list but we know they're not orks. Is it
the list name that rules or the unit name ?

        Personally, I think the Strategy rating rule could have been
reiterated,
but it says in the army book pg 77 "If the force is made up completely
of Chaos Space Marine
Detatchments it's strategy rating is increased to 5."
Page 89 is "Chaos Space Marine Detatchments" and yes, the support
section
includes Daemon engines. So what. Are we arguing over fluff text vs.
rules again?
Yes, they were different before, but so was damn near everything else
(see other thread
on Chaos).

Chris Miller

>
>
Received on Tue Jul 29 1997 - 16:17:54 UTC