41 replies to this topic

[SmellingSalts]

Hi Matt:

I meant no offense, but gamers do tend to break down into min / max versus fluff groups. I only have my own observations to go by, but if you look at the number of times you post about rules and optimum units on this forum, plus the few times I've played you, I would put you in the min / max category. But please don't miss my main point. There is nothing wrong with either theory.

[SmellingSalts]

Qrab, on Apr 20 2008, 09:40 PM, said:

This is a popular misconception, but if you examine the history of chaos it isn't true. When the Realms of Chaos books came out back in 3rd edition, Khorne armies could have Tzeentch or Nurgle allies (but not both). However, Khorne armies could never have Slaanesh allies. 4th edition took away that later prohibition, but added the Daemonic Animosity rules. 5th edition added the warband concept to army creation. "Chaos Undivided" is a relatively new concept (a 5th edition Gift for Daemon Princes) that was only fully developed in 6th edition.

Hi QRAB:

I stand corrected. But the idea is the same. The rules used to prohibit Slaanesh because Khorne opposed him. Then they allowed Slaanesh, but someone who plays fluff instead of rules might avoid both Slaanesh (because he opposes Khorne) and Tzeentch (because of magic). Really not trying to start a flame war, or a comparison about min/max vs. fluff, just that both are valid ways to play and nothing wrong with either, which solves some of the should I take this unit questions.

[Matt]

SmellingSalts, on Apr 21 2008, 09:55 AM, said:

Hi Matt:

I meant no offense, but gamers do tend to break down into min / max versus fluff groups. I only have my own observations to go by, but if you look at the number of times you post about rules and optimum units on this forum, plus the few times I've played you, I would put you in the min / max category. But please don't miss my main point. There is nothing wrong with either theory.

I think you are missing my point.  There is a whole third group of people who try and build armies to have a close game against their opponents.
If you're going to show up with Rhinox riders, then I'm going to pull out the meaner combo's.
When I'm playing friendly games, I build a softer list; (never take the -3 Ld test vs chaos with my ogres, makes the game pretty dull).
When I'm playing league games, my experience is that people pull out all the stops, so I do the same for a good match.
When somebody always shows up with a casket of souls; the Orc shaman might hear about it, and go and get himself a wyvern to keep his Ld5 army alive.

My favorite games are low fantasy; but that type of build only makes for a good game if you can get your opponent to do the same.


-Matt

[Kagetora]

SmellingSalts, on Apr 21 2008, 11:31 AM, said:

Really not trying to start a flame war, or a comparison about min/max vs. fluff, just that both are valid ways to play and nothing wrong with either, which solves some of the should I take this unit questions.

Quote

But please don't miss my main point. There is nothing wrong with either theory.

Quote

Both are valid points and depend on play style. I come from the first, so I get comments about how my army isn't the best designed.

Not picking on you here, Ron, not at all.  But I do find it to be an interesting (if off topic) point that, on any forum you visit, whenever the discussion of powergaming vs fluffgaming comes up, its only the people from the powergaming camp who feel the need to say "there's nothing wrong with either way."

Of COURSE they think that.  They are HAPPY to let people make fluffly lists...its easier to beat the hell out of them.  

I guess I fall in-between myself...I pick a fluffy theme, stick to it like glue, then put the hardest crap in that still fits that theme.  After all, I DO want to win games occasionally.  

Back on semi-topic...Chaos Gods opposed to each other.

I could SWEAR that I, too, have seen multiple fluff sources dealing with the fact that Khorne and Tzeentch did not mix.  I know this stuff changes from edition to edition, but still...I don't think it was just a mass hallucination leading to an overly common misconception.  I'm pretty sure in some book, at some point, Khorne and Tzeentch couldn't mix, due to Khornes unreasoning hatred of Sorcery and Tzeentch thinking Khorne was nothing but a mindless brute.  Might have been old 40k though.  I forget.

I know Qrab is right about Khorne and Slaanesh...but I also remember that being a new change from one edition to another and thinking "Huh.  They completely changed that.  Interesting."

Its always seemed to be hard to keep track of.

[SmellingSalts]

Matt, on Apr 21 2008, 01:05 PM, said:

I think you are missing my point.  There is a whole third group of people who try and build armies to have a close game against their opponents.
If you're going to show up with Rhinox riders, then I'm going to pull out the meaner combo's.
When I'm playing friendly games, I build a softer list; (never take the -3 Ld test vs chaos with my ogres, makes the game pretty dull).
When I'm playing league games, my experience is that people pull out all the stops, so I do the same for a good match.
When somebody always shows up with a casket of souls; the Orc shaman might hear about it, and go and get himself a wyvern to keep his Ld5 army alive.

My favorite games are low fantasy; but that type of build only makes for a good game if you can get your opponent to do the same.


-Matt

Hi Matt:

I don't see the third group. Once you start adjusting builds to match someone else, you are min/maxing. It may be divided into different levels, but it is no longer fluff play as it were.

[DogOfWar]

I honestly have no clue why "fluffy" is completely synonymous with "soft" for some people. SAD armies used to be a complete dick of an army to play against as well as being very fluffy.

On a personal note, due to my extreme jadedness I also have sweepingly generalized catagories for Warhammer gamers:

"Mate" and "Wanker"

I try to keep it British since it's a British game.

[Qrab]

The Khorne/Slaanesh and Nurgle/Tzeentch enmity thing stems back to 3rd edition. Those two pairing started off hating each other, but were always able to ally with one non-opposed power. Prior to the Realms of Chaos books there were no Ruinous Powers, so any mention of Khorne vs Tzeentch animosity is probably from 40K (2nd edition most likely).

As for what bearing this has on army building in 7th edition the answer is simple: none. Whether we like it or not, the background has changed and the old animosities have been removed from the game. Some nostalgic grognards might use the old background to build their armies, but it's false for them to claim this somehow makes their army "fluffier."


@DogOfWar: I like your broad categorization of Warhammer gamers.
Though you (understandably) neglected to mention the third category: Wanker-Mate.

[DogOfWar]

Qrab, on Apr 21 2008, 04:50 PM, said:

Though you (understandably) neglected to mention the third category: Wanker-Mate.

You sir, have shaken the very foundations of my system with this concept. I don't know what to believe now.

[Matt]

DogOfWar, on Apr 21 2008, 07:06 PM, said:

You sir, have shaken the very foundations of my system with this concept. I don't know what to believe now.

Just deny that the 3rd group exists.

-Matt

[Solrac]

DogOfWar, on Apr 21 2008, 04:53 PM, said:

I try to keep it British since it's a British game.

British Game there, but Americanized here!!!! I think for a time, the Brits had the market on fluffy lists and the Yanks were all about power gamin... Now I think things have switched around  (The most recent UK GT was all pants) or this could be some induced delusional episode from still being at work.

...Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
  Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
  And the mome raths outgrabe...


oh gods, its happening again...er...

[DogOfWar]

Matt, on Apr 21 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

Just deny that the 3rd group exists.

Yeah, you're probably right. There's really nobody who is entirely 50/50 on the dot so I can separate them into "you're more wanker than mate so I'll just call you a complete dick" and vice versa.

I'd hate to lose my system now since I've invested so much angst into it.

On an amusing side note, while cleaning out my desk area I came upon the 4th edition rulebook and flipped through it since I remember Daemonic Animosity being there probably at the earliest as well. Sure enough, it's there on pg 87. Roll a D6 for each unit if you have Daemon units of different gods within 12" of each other.

1-2 Daemons move toward closest rival unit and into close combat, even if they're already in combat or can't cover the distance normally. The fight until you roll a 5/6 and will never break.
3-4 Daemons don't move or do anything while they shout/scream at their rivals.
5-6 Ignore their rivals and may move as normal.

Good times!

[Kagetora]

Qrab, on Apr 21 2008, 05:50 PM, said:

As for what bearing this has on army building in 7th edition the answer is simple: none. Whether we like it or not, the background has changed and the old animosities have been removed from the game. Some nostalgic grognards might use the old background to build their armies, but it's false for them to claim this somehow makes their army "fluffier."

Well, I'm definitely a nostalgic grognard then.  You won't catch me mixing Khorne and Tzeentch OR Khorne and Slaanesh.  Nurgle and Tzeentch would obviously be right out as well.  Slaanesh and Nurgle don't go together well for aesthetic reasons.

So, that leaves me pairings of Khorne/Nurgle and Slaanesh/Tzeentch.  Limited, but, hey, what are grognards for.

And I swear to the Old Ones that if I see anyone with any other pairings across the table from me, I'm writing in a zero for Sportsmanship.  Or Comp.  Or whatever.  Maybe both.

I do think its a shame that they have removed any form of Daemonic Rivalry from the actual game mechanics though.  I thought it was kinda cool.  More fluff is always good, especially if it has any, even such a minor, bearing on the game.  Oh well.  Chalk another one up for Codex Creep.  Can't wait until my book gets re-done.

[Qrab]

Kagetora, on Apr 21 2008, 09:40 PM, said:

Well, I'm definitely a nostalgic grognard then.  You won't catch me mixing Khorne and Tzeentch OR Khorne and Slaanesh.  Nurgle and Tzeentch would obviously be right out as well.  Slaanesh and Nurgle don't go together well for aesthetic reasons.

The thing is, this is completely made up on your (and others) part. The WFB old rules actually allowed for Khorne-Tzeentch and Slaanesh-Nurgle alliances. This is as much as self perpetuated myth as is the one that Slaanesh is the pr0n-god whose daemonic creatures can only be hottt chixxxx.

Kagetora, on Apr 21 2008, 09:40 PM, said:

I do think its a shame that they have removed any form of Daemonic Rivalry from the actual game mechanics though.  I thought it was kinda cool.  More fluff is always good, especially if it has any, even such a minor, bearing on the game.  Oh well.  Chalk another one up for Codex Creep.

"Minor bearing on the game." Did you read that chart that DoW posted? Unless you severely limited your army selection you only had 1/3 of a chance of controlling your units each turn. And people think Orcs & Goblins are crippled by their version of Animosity? Daemonic Animosity was dumb as all get out and it's a good thing its gone. The GW developers should've learned by now and done the same for O&Gs.

[DogOfWar]

With regards to the remaining form of Animosity in the game, I agree to an extent. I like Animosity conceptually but with the state of the game as it is today it may indeed be a relic of the past. But that's another subject and this thread has already gone off-topic enough.

[Kagetora]

Qrab, on Apr 22 2008, 05:38 AM, said:

The thing is, this is completely made up on your (and others) part. The WFB old rules actually allowed for Khorne-Tzeentch...

...and I repeat, I find it hard to believe that this incredibly common viewpoint of past fluff is all a giant shared misconception/hallucination.  I'm pretty sure I HAVE read it somewhere, back in the late '80's/early 90's, when I was getting into this hobby.  But, hey, I'm old, and memory is the first thing to go.

Quote

and Slaanesh-Nurgle alliances. This is as much as self perpetuated myth as is the one that Slaanesh is the pr0n-god whose daemonic creatures can only be hottt chixxxx.

I believe if you read my actual post I said the Slaanesh/Nurgle thing was for aesthetic reasons.  My own choice.  Not anything from GW fluff or anything.

Quote

"Minor bearing on the game." Did you read that chart that DoW posted? Unless you severely limited your army selection you only had 1/3 of a chance of controlling your units each turn. And people think Orcs & Goblins are crippled by their version of Animosity? Daemonic Animosity was dumb as all get out and it's a good thing its gone. The GW developers should've learned by now and done the same for O&Gs.

I wasn't talking about that moronic table...that IS stupid.  O&G are hardly crippled by Animosity...there are ways around it or to minimize it.  If the players choose to maximize the number of animosity rolls they have to make and the effects they will have, thats their problem.  Orcs have some big advantages, not the least of which are a HUGE number of selections, very powerful Magic, and the ability to Waaaagh!.  Didn't the O&G win the Broadside Bash?  I guess he wasn't TOO crippled by Animosity.

I was simply talking about fluff prohibiting the mixing of certain Ruinous Powers with each other, and that being reflected in the game in some manner.  I think it would be really cool if they simply said "X cannot be in the same army as Y, and A cannot mix with B."  For example, if you had a General Marked of Tzeentch, no Nurgle units or Marks are allowed in your army.  If you General is Undivided, you may either take units/Marks of Nurgle OR Tzeentch, not both.  Something simple like that, from the fluff, that has a minor effect on the game...i.e. if you want to play with units/Marks of one Power, you may only pick from the other 2, not all 3, when making your list.  Simple stuff.

Its very easy to see why this was eliminated though.  Its way easier to sell more models if you let everyone play with everything.  Screw fluff, common sense, or balance.

[Qrab]

Kagetora, on Apr 22 2008, 03:00 PM, said:

...and I repeat, I find it hard to believe that this incredibly common viewpoint of past fluff is all a giant shared misconception/hallucination.  I'm pretty sure I HAVE read it somewhere, back in the late '80's/early 90's, when I was getting into this hobby.  But, hey, I'm old, and memory is the first thing to go.

Actually, the Khorne/Tzeentch thing was mentioned in a sidebar of the 2nd Ed 40K Codex Chaos (March 96) and in the very beginning of the 5th Ed WFB Realms of Chaos (June 97); it may be in the 4th Ed WFB book, but I can't find mine right now (maybe DoW will check his copy). This is what was said:

Quote

Khorne is the most powerful of all the Chaos gods. His chief rival is Tzeentch, the Great Sorcerer, who is the patron of wizards just as Khorne is the patron of warriors. Of course, this rivalry does not prevent Khorne and Tzeentch from fighting for a common cause when it is convenient to do so. Combined, these two gods are always more powerful than the others. Of all his brother gods, Khorne most despises Slaanesh, whose prancing fopperies are an affront to Khorne's sense of honor and martial pride. Even so, Khorne makes use of the Prince of Chaos when necessary, as much as it may gall him to do so. (emphasis added)

The entries for Tzeentch, Nurgle, and Slaanesh make no mention of rivalries at all, instead their strength (relative to Khorne) is discussed. Aside from the stupid Daemonic Animosity table (which affected all daemons regardless of which power they were aligned to) there is no other mention of rivalries or conflict between the ruinous powers. Nor were the prohibitions on mixing followers in an army.

All in all, the 4th/5th edition background material was both bland and divergent from the stuff from 3rd edition. I think that may be why I pushed it from my mind.

Kagetora, on Apr 22 2008, 03:00 PM, said:

I believe if you read my actual post I said the Slaanesh/Nurgle thing was for aesthetic reasons.  My own choice.  Not anything from GW fluff or anything.

Just so we're clear, I wasn't referring to you.

Kagetora, on Apr 22 2008, 03:00 PM, said:

Didn't the O&G win the Broadside Bash?  I guess he wasn't TOO crippled by Animosity.

I didn't face his army, but I believe Bob's BSB report describes what was in it. I suspect it was made up of a significant number of units that weren't subject to animosity. Y'know, the kind of army that forsakes fluff for effectiveness.

Kagetora, on Apr 22 2008, 03:00 PM, said:

... Something simple like that, from the fluff, that has a minor effect on the game...i.e. if you want to play with units/Marks of one Power, you may only pick from the other 2, not all 3, when making your list.  Simple stuff.

The simplified rules you propose are actually more complex than those from 6th edition HoC book, and those were something that people got wrong on a regular basis. Even veteran Chaos players made illegal armies. Background having even a minor effect on the game in this manner is an inelegant solution as far as I'm concerned. The background should be just that: background.

Kagetora, on Apr 22 2008, 03:00 PM, said:

Its very easy to see why this was eliminated though.  Its way easier to sell more models if you let everyone play with everything.  Screw fluff, common sense, or balance.

Yes, the sky is falling.

[ghoulking]

I was going to say something, then realized I'm better off not interfering in an argument between the Chaos powers (Qrab=Nurgle, Kagetora=Slaanesh, Matt=Tzeentch, SmellingSalts=Khorne)

[DogOfWar]

Qrab, on Apr 22 2008, 06:37 PM, said:

it may be in the 4th Ed WFB book, but I can't find mine right now (maybe DoW will check his copy).

I don't know about that... sounds suspiciously like "effort" to me.

[Eumerin]

Kagetora, on Apr 22 2008, 03:00 PM, said:

...and I repeat, I find it hard to believe that this incredibly common viewpoint of past fluff is all a giant shared misconception/hallucination.  I'm pretty sure I HAVE read it somewhere, back in the late '80's/early 90's, when I was getting into this hobby.  But, hey, I'm old, and memory is the first thing to go.

I think I vaguely remember seeing something similar once upon a time as well, though I can't for the life of me remember where.  I also seem to dimly remember thinking that it didn't fit with the information in Slaves of Darkness, which was the book that focused on Khorne and Slaanesh and laid out their rivalry.

I'm pretty sure that I never saw any of the sources that Qrab cited.  And the rivalry mentioned seemed more pronounced than the quote that he posted.

But it's been so long that I can't clearly remember much else about it.  Based on the GW stuff that I'd been exposed to around the time period (which wasn't much - after The Lost and the Damned hard cover was released, I didn't see much WH40K stuff for a while, and I had practically no WFB exposure) when I would have seen it, it's entirely possible that it was in an only loosely affiliated product - for instance one of the computer games that showed up around that time (though other than the possibility of it being mentioned in the Epic computer game, I can't think of where it might have turned up).

Another possibility, I suppose, is that it was mentioned in the Chaos boxed set for Epic.

[Andrew_Mouse]

the new daemon book has fluff as to why they are working together..

basicly they have all eternity to fight endless wars on the daemons worlds vs each other.. but when they get the chance to exist on the warhammer realm of reality they set aside there endless hatrids to cleave through and devourer as many souls as they can before they get sent back to the daemons worlds of endless bickering and blood shed..

they dont last that long in reality so they make as much use of the time they get

I like that better and I have played chaos from second edition 40k till now.. I dont like the rivalries anyway.. it seems wrong to me

Tzeenech should hate Khorn
Khorn should hate everyone
Nurgle shouldnt hate anyone
Slaanash hates everyone and loves everyone depending on his moo at the time