Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Titans
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=10490		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Titans
So, why are the three Chaos Titans;

a - Renamed.

b - Armed with different weaponry to their loyalist counterparts.



I wasn't around for the discussion, so please enlighten me.
Author:  Chroma [ Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Titans

(Evil and Chaos @ Sep. 07 2007,21:03)
QUOTE
So, why are the three Chaos Titans;

a - Renamed.

I don't think there were ever Chaos "Reavers" and "Warhounds" specifically mentioned in the previous versions of the rules, just Chaos "Warlords"... but I could be wrong.
b - Armed with different weaponry to their loyalist counterparts.
It's the power of Chaos, man!  *laugh*

I believe the Banelord is armed with the weapons from the original Space Marine/Titan Legions rules... and Chaos Titans always seemed to have tails for some reason...

As to the Feral and Ravager weapons, I have no idea.



I wasn't around for the discussion, so please enlighten me.[/quote]
test
Author:  nealhunt [ Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Titans
To reflect the fact that Chaos titans are supposed to be substantially mutated and sometimes quite different than the imperials.
Author:  BlackLegion [ Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Titans
Essentially Chaos uses the same titanchassis than their imperial counterpart. They should theoretically use the same weapons AND have acsess to chaos specific titanweapons (the one of the Banelord and a few more). And yes every chaos titan seems to have a tail.
But then only the Banelord is depicted and several Warlords in drawn pictures.
Reavers and Warhounds are only seen as pictures from models for the horus heresy era.

The only post-heresy scouttitan i know of which have models for are the Subjugator and Questor titans of Slaanesh.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:37 am ]
Post subject:  Titans

(nealhunt @ Sep. 07 2007,22:32)
QUOTE
To reflect the fact that Chaos titans are supposed to be substantially mutated and sometimes quite different than the imperials.

It just perplexes me, that in 40k, Chaos Warhound Titans are armed pretty much identically to their loyalist counterparts (And it's pretty depressing that 40k has more choice in weapon configurations for Warhound Titans than Epic!).

The Warhound Titan isn't called a 'Feral' Titan either, it's a 'Chaos Warhound'. It has a few rules differences in-game, but nothing on the scale that we see in Epic, where the Titans are really very different.

I was just wondering what would happen to the balance of the list if the traitor Titans were made a bit more... recognizable for new players.

A small change here would simply be in renaming the Titans for approachability (Chaos Warlord, Chaos Reaver, etc), while restatting them would obviously be a much bigger change.

IIRC, wasn't the Banelord distinct from the Chaos Warlord back then?
Author:  BlackLegion [ Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:55 am ]
Post subject:  Titans
In Epic 40.000 only the weapons made the difference from Banelord to Chaos Warlord. There the Banelord could choose 2 arm weapons of a list of 5. Carapace, Head and Tail weapons where the same as now.
And in the armylist itselve Chaos could use Warlords, Reavers and Warhounds which aren no different than their imperial counterpart (so no tails for them)
Author:  Kleomenes [ Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Titans
Back in the olden days, there were tails and chaos style heads that you could add to chaos warlords and reavers to mark them out as chaos touched. The limited background fluff that was made explicit about the traitor titan legions post heresy (very limited unfortunately) was clear that the traitor titans were heavily mutated even if not in obvious, tail like ways. It was implied that chaos titans had at least partially become demon engines. This is a thread that remains in more recent fluff books.

I would be willing to guess the fact that a chaos warhound is very similar to a warhound in 40k is the fact that its been easier for forgeworld to sculpt a modification rather than actually go to town and make a radically mutated chaos titan.

I've never really thought of ravagers and ferals, fluffwise, as anything but chaos warhounds and chaos reavers renamed either by their users or by imperial authorities. They could in fact just be terms for the loadouts (as per the old nemesis/eclipse etc warlords).

I personally prefer them as "Chaos Warhound" , "Chaos Reaver"  and so on sound a bit lame. Furthermore, naming everything "Chaos Imperialcopyx" harmonises chaos forces with the imperials too much. While in essence chaos and imperial armies are using the same gear, in truth there is a lot more difference between the two factions than a repaint and addition of spikey bits. Epic captures this not just in table tactics, but feel of the army. It would be a shame to weaken that.
Author:  pixelgeek [ Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Titans
Not sure why this was done as it was in Jervis' original version of the army and I don't recall any discussion about it.

Not sure what difference it really makes though.

As mentioned, the Chaos Titans are corrupted and twisted from their original designs...
Author:  Legion 4 [ Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:10 am ]
Post subject:  Titans
Well in AT1/SM1, which took place during the Heresy, the Traitor Titans were like Traitor SMs, IG etc. ... The same as Imperial. As time went on the Traitors began to mutate. And in SM1 Traitors SMs could be allied with Chaos SMs. I guess not all units mutated at the same time ?? ???  But clearly after the Heresy, Traitors were pretty much all mutated, and were cleary Chaos. So in early battles of the Heresy (and we play this way), Imperial and Traitor are pretty much the same.  :D
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:04 am ]
Post subject:  Titans

(pixelgeek @ Sep. 09 2007,23:14)
QUOTE
Not sure what difference it really makes though.

As with previous discussions about the 'Decimator', I'm just thinking of approachability for newbies.
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Titans

(Evil and Chaos @ Sep. 10 2007,11:04)
QUOTE

(pixelgeek @ Sep. 09 2007,23:14)
QUOTE
Not sure what difference it really makes though.

As with previous discussions about the 'Decimator', I'm just thinking of approachability for newbies.

That's a factor to consider.

I think the driving point was actually that Jervis didn't want ANY chaos titans in the list.  He wanted an entirely different set of war engines, claiming that the only reason they had loyal/traitor titans in the original game was that they were too poor to create more than one plastic mold.  He wanted to go back to their original "dream project" from 20 years previous and make Chaos more radically divergent than the "bad guy marines" it is currently.

He only grudgingly allowed them after many, many people popping up on the playtest boards with comments like "where are the chaos titans?"  Even then, I think the only reason he did it was because he saw the writing on the wall and realized that new models might not happen at all.

So, when he finally included titan stats, he made them more divergent from the Imperials than in previous editions.

At one point, I was strongly motivated to keep Epic as approachable for 40K players as possible.  While I still think it's a good idea, history has proven that 40K-Epic transitions don't exactly seem to be a big marketing factor for Epic.  It's still something to keep in mind, but I'm not sure that a minor item like this really makes any difference on that front.
Author:  Tertius [ Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Titans
As I recall, in Space Marine, there were no cards for Chaos Reavers or Warhounds, only Warlords.  The Banelord was invented during the Space Marine era.  Then, there was a rule about using pretty much any loyal space marine unit (including Reavers and Warhounds), and just adding the word "Chaos" to the front of it.  The Chaos of that time was widely varied, and had a ton of different war engines and vehicles.  I just played the E:A Black Legion list, and was disappointed with the simple "Bad Space Marines" feel of it.  It lacks the variety and flavor of old.  And I still don't understand the separation of Black Legion and Lost and Damned.  For example, I wanted to use DoomWings with my Tzeentch marines, and a Lord of Battles with my Khorne land raiders, but apparently I can't anymore.  And don't get me started about my precious Primarchs.
Author:  BlackLegion [ Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Titans
BackLegion and Lost&theDamned are in the same way separated in Epic as SpaceMarines and Imperial Guard.

I don't like it either but it adds playabillity. So no sillyness as SpaceMarines with only ImperialGuard Artillery as support.

But an Armylist with orbital landing SpaceMarines as support i would welcome as an viable addition.

But i really dislike the absent of the god specific Daemon Engines from the BlackLegion armylist.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Titans
I think the Black Legion army list is actually not all that well focused, and could do with several units simply being stripped out, and several special rules simplified, modified or removed too.

After that, a few Daemon engines wouldn't go amiss.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/