Jarl Kjaran Coldheart Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 See, in general I enjoy the new codex. I think that TWC should have been brought in as 13nth company units, and I feel that "Lone Wolves" are just the old Wulfen really... so I see no change there. Fluff wise yes, rules wise no. I disapprove of the Mark of the Wulfen everywhere... I see it as a half-arsed attempt to make up for the loss of a second SCCW. 13nth co players might enjoy it, but it doesnt belong in the normal companies who dread such a fate. i dunno there, i actually like units with Mark of the Wulfen...shows the more wild side of the Wolves, the animal within that appeared so often in the ragnar series. WLK You might also remember in the Ragnar series how much of a horrible fate it was regarded, and how few people trusted such a creature. You might also remember that "Wolf Bitten" was a lesser affliction on the road to the mark of the wulfen, and was a point at wich the beast might be halted. It shouldnt be mark of the Wulfen, Wolf Bitten I could understand, but not the mark. i agree on what you said on another thread on the naming issue, but still like the game effect...and i do like how it shows the degression of the SW geneseed WLK Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/184985-are-wolf-lords-really-that-week-fluff-wise/page/3/#findComment-2188189 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beef Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 I agree with WLK, The mark does show that during battle some of the SW succumb to the mark. Hell Ragnar did so on many times throughiut his exploits. Ok so the TW cacv is not mentioned outside the fang due to embaresment? I doubt that. Makes no sence as it cannot be fear of the =I= either. Just bad writing. Its wispered in hushed tones deep in the fang like its a dirty secret. Since when were SW ever ashamed of anything they did? Why the secrecy. We are not DA, we are proud son of Russ, we hold our heads high in anything we do/ Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/184985-are-wolf-lords-really-that-week-fluff-wise/page/3/#findComment-2188195 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarl Kjaran Coldheart Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 I agree with WLK, The mark does show that during battle some of the SW succumb to the mark. Hell Ragnar did so on many times throughiut his exploits. Ok so the TW cacv is not mentioned outside the fang due to embaresment? I doubt that. Makes no sence as it cannot be fear of the =I= either. Just bad writing. Its wispered in hushed tones deep in the fang like its a dirty secret. Since when were SW ever ashamed of anything they did? Why the secrecy. We are not DA, we are proud son of Russ, we hold our heads high in anything we do/ just a warning, 4 out of 5 doctors agree that agreeing with WLK is hazardous to your sanity. :P and yea, i doubt we would keep a secret out of riding monstorous wolves either... WLK Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/184985-are-wolf-lords-really-that-week-fluff-wise/page/3/#findComment-2188203 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Particularly when I saw one rip apart a Khorne Lord the other day.... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/184985-are-wolf-lords-really-that-week-fluff-wise/page/3/#findComment-2188259 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freman Bloodglaive Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 I keep it so secret that there will be none in my army. :o Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/184985-are-wolf-lords-really-that-week-fluff-wise/page/3/#findComment-2188273 Share on other sites More sharing options...
maznaz Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 in YOUR opinion they are meant to be viewed that way. in my opinion, and the way that they are written they are not camp fire stories but are meant to be accurate stories about the characters background. they are simply not written in a way that shows them to be boastful stories or the sagas of the characters. I appreciate your reply, but with respect, it's not my opinion. It clearly says so in the codex in black and white. It's not a matter of interpretation, it's just the age old internet issue of geeks thinking their encyclopedic knowledge of past literature is more important than the direction the creative director wishes to take a product. It's not. Consider how het up people get about a STYLE (yes that's all it is) in this situation then imagine trying to write official literature for something like Star Trek. The idea gives me nightmares. Marek Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/184985-are-wolf-lords-really-that-week-fluff-wise/page/3/#findComment-2188362 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 in YOUR opinion they are meant to be viewed that way. in my opinion, and the way that they are written they are not camp fire stories but are meant to be accurate stories about the characters background. they are simply not written in a way that shows them to be boastful stories or the sagas of the characters. I appreciate your reply, but with respect, it's not my opinion. It clearly says so in the codex in black and white. Oh? Care to give a quote... because the only thing in that entry that might be circumspect is the part there the priests "theorise" he was taken in as a child after the death of his family. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/184985-are-wolf-lords-really-that-week-fluff-wise/page/3/#findComment-2188585 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.