Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yes, because I commonly see my Space Marines running around summoning daemons, using defilers, obliterators, daemon weapons, being possessed, not fielding AC or speeders... I mean really, they are just the same,... right?

Just because the basic chaos marine is almost (without mark or that CC weapon) the same as a Loyalist Marine, doesn't make them less distinct as an army, there are still VAST differences in the forces. So many drama queens. I thought the eldar were bad.

The lash is bad.
The wiping out of a number of chaos armies is bad.
But overall the codex isn't that horrible. When compared to what some people had, is when it pales. It is still very unique in play style, and is what it is. Corrupted Space Marines.

Posted By Toreador on 08/29/2007 8:46 AM

Chaos is still different from Loyalists, but a great deal less, so much so that the distinction becomes a little vague.

Yes, because I commonly see my Space Marines running around summoning daemons, using defilers, obliterators, daemon weapons, being possessed, not fielding AC or speeders... I mean really, they are just the same,... right?

Just because the basic chaos marine is almost (without mark or that CC weapon) the same as a Loyalist Marine, doesn't

I might be mistaken,but isnt a basic chaos marine almost the same as a loyalist marine.  I mean come on; power armor check, Bolter Check, Rhino check, Predator Check, Dreadnught check,! I think I made my point.  CSM are basically SM with Spikes and marks.  The new codex will still be very viable.  It will just take a different army list.  Now, for poor saps like me who have their IW nothing more then a paint job, then have a specific list and then become nothing more then a paint job again! is frustrating, it will be  challenge, but Im getting my basi back for Apocalypse x10 so its cool.

Posted By Pariah Press on 08/29/2007 6:47 AM

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/28/2007 10:52 PM

Now correct me if I'm misinterpreting your argument, but you are arguing that Chaos legions don't need their own rules because armies are defined by their models, background, and paint scheme, are you not?  Well by that logic why should any army get its own rules?  It should be perfectly acceptable to eliminate all army lists except for one and use "counts as."  This should be no cause for concern since an army is "defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme."

So which is it?  Either you agree with the conclusion or you disagree with my interpretation of your argument.  Maybe what you really meant was, "an army is defined by its models, background, and paint scheme so it doesn't need its own special rules (except when does)."

You are indeed misinterpreting.  I stated that "I think that an army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than by its special rules." 

Special rules crop up like weeds, and must periodically be trimmed back, or the system bogs down.  I admit that they cut a little too close this time with the generic daemons, but how many different kinds of terminators do we need in this game?

Hear, Hear!

Ok - Abadabadoobaddon. Answer me this.

How much tougher IS a rubric terminator supposed to be than a "normal" terminator fluffwise - and did the previous rules capture that difference appropriately?

This brings us to the ultimate question that every game developer needs to ask themselves when reexaminaing their game. Do the rules make SENSE and do they add value. If the answer to either of those questions is no - then the rule needs to be tossed or changed.

Frankly - the difference between Rubric and non rubric terminators is not that large. Tzeentch marking the terminators increases their survivabilty about as much as the "rubric" did (and actually increases it versus the weapons that generally are used to kill termies - lascannons, meltaguns, Demolisher pieplates). So why have two unit entries, taking up space in the book, and potentially adding confusion, when one would work?

For all the complaining - my friend who plays Death Guard is perfectly happy with  the stuff he's heard about the new codex. For him - the artificial constraints placed on his "Death Guard" army in the 3.5 codex chafed a bit. Now that there aren't official "death guard" rules - he can make his Death Guard army what he wants.

To him - the "special rules" aspect of the Legion mattered less than the paint scheme, history, and theme of the army. Since *those* haven't changed  - he's happy. Now that Death Guard is no longer shackled by those special rules, he can have fun with nurgle marked bikers or raptors.  In the end - it's still billious green, it still worships Papa Nurgle, and it still absorbs hideous amounts of firepower as it stomps up hte battlefield. It's still as much a Death Guard army as it was when it had it's own Legion rules...

Well, except for the generic daemons.

I really get annoyed by people simply not caring about the fact that ALL 9 legions that were in the old codex now simply dont exist anymore as rules.

I really would like to see them eliminate the space wolves, blood angels, and dark angels codex's.  If that happened how many people would be crying about their wolf guard terminators or death company that gone?

Well my response would be: can't you just use the same paint scheme and use regular terminator rules for the wolf guard?  And can't you just use assault marines for death company?  What about using regular scout rules for space wolves scouts?  Oh gosh you don't want to do that because these chapters are soooo different from vanilla marines? 

Come on, dont look at this new codex as anything good, its a waste of paper because it doesn't address 90%+ of the existing chaos armies out there.

And dont tell me that apocalypse fixes the problem because a techmarine with servo arm is not an equal representation of an IW Warsmith with servo arm.  Also i cant use the apocalypse rules in tournaments so it dont help in that regard.

Face it, GW made an error by not having legion rules included.

Posted By WarsmithMorgoth on 08/29/2007 10:17 AM

Face it, GW made an error by not having legion rules included.

No, GW made an error by having SM Chapters with special rules (and I say this as a Dark Angels player).  If those didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And GW is really damned no matter what they do.  If they release Legion specific books, we'll hear "Hurr Hurr, more Spaz Marinez," and if they don't we get people like you and Abby complaining about how their favorite legion lost its special rules (that they only had for .5 editions).

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By keichi246 on 08/29/2007 10:03 AM

Posted By Pariah Press on 08/29/2007 6:47 AM

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/28/2007 10:52 PM

Now correct me if I'm misinterpreting your argument, but you are arguing that Chaos legions don't need their own rules because armies are defined by their models, background, and paint scheme, are you not?  Well by that logic why should any army get its own rules?  It should be perfectly acceptable to eliminate all army lists except for one and use "counts as."  This should be no cause for concern since an army is "defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme."

So which is it?  Either you agree with the conclusion or you disagree with my interpretation of your argument.  Maybe what you really meant was, "an army is defined by its models, background, and paint scheme so it doesn't need its own special rules (except when does)."

You are indeed misinterpreting.  I stated that "I think that an army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than by its special rules." 

Special rules crop up like weeds, and must periodically be trimmed back, or the system bogs down.  I admit that they cut a little too close this time with the generic daemons, but how many different kinds of terminators do we need in this game?

Hear, Hear!

Ok - Abadabadoobaddon. Answer me this.

How much tougher IS a rubric terminator supposed to be than a "normal" terminator fluffwise - and did the previous rules capture that difference appropriately?

This brings us to the ultimate question that every game developer needs to ask themselves when reexaminaing their game. Do the rules make SENSE and do they add value. If the answer to either of those questions is no - then the rule needs to be tossed or changed.

Frankly - the difference between Rubric and non rubric terminators is not that large. Tzeentch marking the terminators increases their survivabilty about as much as the "rubric" did (and actually increases it versus the weapons that generally are used to kill termies - lascannons, meltaguns, Demolisher pieplates). So why have two unit entries, taking up space in the book, and potentially adding confusion, when one would work?

For all the complaining - my friend who plays Death Guard is perfectly happy with  the stuff he's heard about the new codex. For him - the artificial constraints placed on his "Death Guard" army in the 3.5 codex chafed a bit. Now that there aren't official "death guard" rules - he can make his Death Guard army what he wants.

To him - the "special rules" aspect of the Legion mattered less than the paint scheme, history, and theme of the army. Since *those* haven't changed  - he's happy. Now that Death Guard is no longer shackled by those special rules, he can have fun with nurgle marked bikers or raptors.  In the end - it's still billious green, it still worships Papa Nurgle, and it still absorbs hideous amounts of firepower as it stomps up hte battlefield. It's still as much a Death Guard army as it was when it had it's own Legion rules...

I think your friend is totally missing the point of a cult army then. Those "artificial constraints" were there to simulate how the death guard operate on the battlefield. If he just wanted a nurgle theme, he could've just done that. Not all nurgle worshipers are necessarily in the death guard. But for people who wanted to play a true death guard, and in that style, that option is no longer there.

And the special rules can matter less than the theme, history, paint scheme, etc to some people. But it is the actual playing of the army (and how it operates) that adds the variety. Otherwise, you could go to an omni-dex. You can argue about the effectiveness of representing cult armies in the old codex, but I don't think the idea itself was bad. And there is no more "Death Guard" army. There is only Chaos Space Marine armies.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 11:02 AM

Posted By WarsmithMorgoth on 08/29/2007 10:17 AM

Face it, GW made an error by not having legion rules included.

No, GW made an error by having SM Chapters with special rules (and I say this as a Dark Angels player).  If those didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And GW is really damned no matter what they do.  If they release Legion specific books, we'll hear "Hurr Hurr, more Spaz Marinez," and if they don't we get people like you and Abby complaining about how their favorite legion lost its special rules (that they only had for .5 editions).

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I actually think that the way it was handled in the old codex was the best way. If they did that for all the army books, you could have the "main" core, and still allow players to have unique chapters/legions/craftworlds/kults/kabals/etc. I think the current codex design is a very big step backwards. Especially if (as been the pattern) the focus switches before all codexes (and I would include Eldar in that) are redone to the new standard.

Ok, this is getting ridiculous.

The new codex is great for a lot of reasons:
1) It encourages DIY warbands, and removes constraints on army comp.
2) The individual cults are better defined, balanced, and focused.
3) The most abusive aspects of the old list are all removed.
4) The codex is another in a move towards a trimming of cheap, static long range shooting.
5) Rhinos are usuable again!
6) Terminators have uses outside of simply holding ACs

the new Codex is awful for a lot of reasons:
1) Unlike the eldar codex, which threw a bone to each former sublist in the new book, this codex removes not just the sublists, but prevents any alteration of the FOC and does not include non-infantry troops. Eldar got jetbike troops, better avengers, pathfinders as troops, a kicking Eldrad, and even the option for wraithguard troops. Chaos got... nothing.
2) Entire army builds are invalidated. Daemonbomb, Chaos-wings, Uber-psykers, alpha legion.
3) Everybody with Daemons, or more than on Greater Daemon, got hosed.
4) Certain units lost a lot of flavourful rules and combat rules: Raptors, Chosen, all daemonic gifts, etc.
5) Some units changed role dramatically: dreads and defilers, raptors. people who bought an indirect fire unit now have a fast moving CC dreadnought.
6) Lash!

here's the difference, barring Lash, between the Pros and the cons: the Pros judge the codex as it is, while the cons judge the codex compared to the last one. Failing to judge the current codex on it's own merits shows little foresight, because this codex is going to be the base of some wonderful armies in the next five years. At the same time, failing to see how this current codex invalidates money, time, and effort spent on armies built under the last codex shows very little regard for fellow gamers and even a sense of history.

HBMC's review was built on the presumption that he liked the old codex, and merely wanted the new codex to tweak/tone down the worst parts of the old codex. Many of the supporters see this new codex as either not affecting them and their armies, or toning down a broken codex that was a byzantine dinosaur.

My proposal is that everybody who hates the new changes mourn their lost armies, but take a look at the new book as an opporuntity to build new armies, while those who love the new book acknowledge the losses suffered by many veteran gamers, and stop the relentless preaching, and show a little respect and courtesy.

And really, without knowing what things will come, we can't totally judge where this Chaos codex will lead. It may very well lead to legion specific books and a wider variety than before.

But, it also may not. I do agree with Polonius,... but it wouldn't be the internet without constant discussion, ranting and raving.

Oh.. and lastly....

Nazis! (though the word was already uttered forth in an earlier post)

Posted By Pariah Press on 08/29/2007 6:47 AM
You are indeed misinterpreting.  I stated that "I think that an army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than by its special rules."

Ah, I thought so - you're hedging your argument.  "An army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than by its special rules."  The question then becomes: exactly how much is "more?"  Lemme guess - enough that an army doesn't need its own special rules (unless it does).

What I think is the most infuriating thing to Veterans is that the codex has become a color by numbers style exercise. While, superficially, all units which were available before are still available:

There are no bonuses for taking certain combinations of units.
There are no differing force organization charts.
There are no differences in demon models, nor is there any distinction between daemonic beasts, swarms or cavalry.

Certain things in the new codex are -obviously- inferior choices and certain things in the new codex are obviously very efficient or powerful... once you get through all the good stuff, take the mandatory stuff and ignore all the bad stuff - the amount of stuff left over to give your army some sort of flavour is -well- kinda limited...

For example: I don't really see how a V4 codex Chaos HTH army could work without lots of Fzorgle abuse. You can't infiltrate large portions of the army, daemon summoning is different, and the daemons themselves are kind of, uh... crap. The writers gifted us with random posessed and spawn (yay!), and fleeting Defilers (taken at the expense of AT firepower).

You don't see regular space marine assault squads trading their jump packs for Rhinos... why? Because it isn't a very good tactic. Chaos didn't use it much in pre-codex V4 because it isn't a good return on points, but now that the mini-firebases are gone, it's now at the top of the totem pole (for troops). Just because it is now at the top doesn't mean that it measures up though!

Posted By keichi246 on 08/29/2007 10:03 AM
Ok - Abadabadoobaddon. Answer me this.
How much tougher IS a rubric terminator supposed to be than a "normal" terminator fluffwise - and did the previous rules capture that difference appropriately?

How much tougher is a rubric in power armor supposed to be than a "normal" marine in power armor fluffwise?  Well, look at the rules we're given.  In the old codex a rubric marine was a "normal" marine with Slow & Purposeful, Fearless, and +1 Wound.  A rubric terminator was a "normal" terminator with Slow & Purposeful, Fearless, and +1 Wound.  Wow, that almost makes sense in a way!  So yes, the previous rules captured the difference appropriately.

Now look at the new rules.  A rubric marine is a "normal" marine with a 4+ inv save, Fearless, Slow & Purposeful, Inferno Bolts, The Sorcerer Commands special rule.  Ok, so far so good.  Now it stands to reason that a rubric terminator should have at least a 4+ inv save, Fearless, Slow & Purposeful, and The Sorcerer Commands special rule, right?  In fact, for the sake of consistency they should probably have Inferno Bolts, a sorcerer champ, and a 3+ inv save too (rubric marines have +1 inv save on top of the 5+ they'd get from the Mark of Tzeentch so rubric terminators should probably have +1 inv save on top of the 4+ they'd get from the Mark of Tzeentch).  Yet for some reason they're not Slow & Purposeful or Fearless and they can't be led by a sorcerer champ.

Posted By keichi246 on 08/29/2007 10:03 AM
This brings us to the ultimate question that every game developer needs to ask themselves when reexaminaing their game. Do the rules make SENSE and do they add value.

I dunno... maybe in Thousand Sons armies leading terminators is actually a punishment so they only assign them to the most cowardly inexperienced sorcerers?  Maybe the rubric interacted with the terminator armor's inertial damping systems in unpredictable ways, causing rubric terminators constantly to expel malodorous puffs of magical pink flatulence?  Yeah, that sounds about right.  This flatulence must also propel them across the battlefield at speeds higher than any mere power armored rubric could dream of achieving (if they could dream).  Unfortunately their flatulent fecundity adversely affects their utility as a stable firing platform - their incessant gaseous emanations jostle their otherwise sturdy frames with such violence that the accuracy of their bolter fire inevitably suffers.  I guess that makes sense.

Because they aren't rubric terminators. You can count them as or like if you wish, but the TS list as a whole is gone. Not that it was ever competitive, or used by anyone that didn't care to lose every game they played. I hope it comes back, but in a better combination. The funniest thing I find is people complaining about armies that were useless in the old Chaos Codex. All I heard was complaints about how much certain armies sucked (mostly the cult armies). TS were deemed as all but useless. Now you have to follow a more shall we say "open interpretation" about those legions if you wish to play them, but dare I say that now they are better on the table than they were in the old book?

Welcome to the world of armies that don't have infiltrate and still somehow have to make it into hand to hand.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 11:02 AM
And GW is really damned no matter what they do.  If they release Legion specific books, we'll hear "Hurr Hurr, more Spaz Marinez," and if they don't we get people like you and Abby complaining about how their favorite legion lost its special rules (that they only had for .5 editions).

Of course!  By cutting the legion specific rules, nerfing daemons to uselessness, and axing LatD altogether they can have the worst of both worlds!  Brilliant!

And again you belittle the legion rules.  As has been stated before, the cult legions had their own special rules back in RT, long before any Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, or *barf* Black Templars.  The 3.5 codex simply restored those rules after the godawful drek that was the 3.0 Chaos codex.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 8:32 AM
I think one side affect that we'll see as a result of this codex is a lot more creativity from gamers on creating their own unique Chaos warband. Before, everyone picked a legion and went with that. Now, not only can you still re-create the feel of the legions, (despite the loss of *gasp* rubric terminators) but you are also encouraged to create your own unique renegade force.

Yet strangely enough an apparently huge number of unique renegade forces seem to be led by twin slaaneshi psykers!  Must have been a bumper crop in the ol' Eye of Terror this year.  Yay creativity!

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/29/2007 12:32 PM

Posted By Pariah Press on 08/29/2007 6:47 AM
You are indeed misinterpreting.  I stated that "I think that an army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than by its special rules."

Ah, I thought so - you're hedging your argument.  "An army is defined more by its models, background, and paint scheme than by its special rules."  The question then becomes: exactly how much is "more?"  Lemme guess - enough that an army doesn't need its own special rules (unless it does).

But a lot of the cult troops do still have special rules, just not as many as they used to.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I agree Ozy that they possibly made a mistake releasing rules for those legions in the first place, but the fact remains that they did and now damned themselves by invalidating those rules.

But i've been playing this game for 10 years now and i have seen this happen before to other armies so now i guess i am getting my taste of it, but it doesn't mean i have to like it.

I am too into this game to quit playing it anyways so I will have to carry on as always. 

I just have to vent sometimes.

Posted By Toreador on 08/29/2007 1:32 PM
Because they aren't rubric terminators. You can count them as or like if you wish, but the TS list as a whole is gone. Not that it was ever competitive, or used by anyone that didn't care to lose every game they played. I hope it comes back, but in a better combination. The funniest thing I find is people complaining about armies that were useless in the old Chaos Codex. All I heard was complaints about how much certain armies sucked (mostly the cult armies). TS were deemed as all but useless. Now you have to follow a more shall we say "open interpretation" about those legions if you wish to play them, but dare I say that now they are better on the table than they were in the old book?

Welcome to the world of armies that don't have infiltrate and still somehow have to make it into hand to hand.

This post right here explains the difference between people who loved the old codex and hate the new one from those that love the new one.

Toreador simply doesn't understand why people would play a pure 1k sons list, since they weren't good.  Hundreds of people playing 1k sons could probably try to explain it, but I doubt it would ever really click.

People liked those lists not for power (that's what IW were for, or Black Legion), but because it was a framework of what GW said the army looked like.  When you played the 1ksons list, you weren't playing a Tzeentch heavy warband, you were playing what an actual remnant of the rubric marines would look like.

Why do people play all GK daemonhunters?  Or Orks?  because they have an amazing background, they play differently than any other army, and they force your opponent to think and play in a tactically different way.  More lists, even if they don't add power, add to the overall diversity of the game, and make everything more interesting for everybody.

The legion lists, except for IW, offered small bonuses for fairly substantial penalties, but those choices resulted in some of the most flavorful armies we'll ever see.  Sure, the same lists could nearly be created today, but without even the scintilla of bonus of the old list, with the added bonus of losing daemons.

Maybe gamers are too concerned about rules, but there simply is a large difference between painting a terminator boltgun, calling his AC a psycannon, and playing "grey knights" with your space codex, and actually playing with the Daemonhunters codex. 

As I've said before, the new codex is great for doing what it claims to do: represent renegade warbands.  Diversity is essential for health in any community, and the death of the legion armies is a loss to gaming as a whole, and while it's not a fatal one, dismissing this loss as minor is simpleminded.

So what special rules do my Thousand Sons Possessed, World Eater Terminators, Death Guard Bikers and Noise Marine Havocs get?

Oh wait... none of these units exist any more in the Codex, so when you say that they have 'less' special rules Ozzy, what you actually meant was 'no' special rules. Thanks for clarifying.

BYE

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 08/29/2007 1:33 PM

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 11:02 AM
And GW is really damned no matter what they do.  If they release Legion specific books, we'll hear "Hurr Hurr, more Spaz Marinez," and if they don't we get people like you and Abby complaining about how their favorite legion lost its special rules (that they only had for .5 editions).

Of course!  By cutting the legion specific rules, nerfing daemons to uselessness, and axing LatD altogether they can have the worst of both worlds!  Brilliant!

And again you belittle the legion rules.  As has been stated before, the cult legions had their own special rules back in RT, long before any Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, or *barf* Black Templars.  The 3.5 codex simply restored those rules after the godawful drek that was the 3.0 Chaos codex.

Posted By Ozymandias on 08/29/2007 8:32 AM
I think one side affect that we'll see as a result of this codex is a lot more creativity from gamers on creating their own unique Chaos warband. Before, everyone picked a legion and went with that. Now, not only can you still re-create the feel of the legions, (despite the loss of *gasp* rubric terminators) but you are also encouraged to create your own unique renegade force.

Yet strangely enough an apparently huge number of unique renegade forces seem to be led by twin slaaneshi psykers!  Must have been a bumper crop in the ol' Eye of Terror this year.  Yay creativity!

1. This is going around in circles and Polonius did a good job of explaining both sides.  The cult rules were either useless (TkSons, World Eaters to a degree) or waaaaaay  open to abuse (Siren Princes, Alpha Legion infiltrators, Word Bearer Daemon-Bomb, Iron Warriors, etc).  They needed to be trimmed back.
2. I've stated several times that I agree with you on the generic daemons, it would have been nice to be able to mark daemons like you can mark other units.
3. What did you really expect from LatD?  They were a sub-List in a campaign specific codex release, had no model range and never had any support.  GW said before Dark Angels that any release was going to be fully supported and if they couldn't do that, they wouldn't release the army.  What were you smoking to think that LatD would every get the same treatment as other codexes?

As to your second point.  Lash is bad, we all can agree.  But is it really any different that the cookie-cutter Siren Lists, IW pie-plate spam, or Daemon-Bomb armies we saw before?  They must have had bumper crops of Siren Princes too by your reckoning.

You're pissed, we get it.  I really do think that you are harping on the negatives and missing some of the new benefits of this codex.  (and please don't be predictably sarcastic and respond with, "Positives like generic daemons,  Lash, no legions, etc. ad nauseum...)

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Polonius, I wouldn't call it out if I ever saw those armies fielded on the tabletop. Other than myself I haven't seen an ork army show to our shop in over half a year. I have seen one Thousand sons army in the last year, and I play against a Deathguard army when he chooses to field it (well, because he hosts Deathguard.org, he has to play sometimes, but it is rare). If I actually saw those armies in the community I would change my attitude, but if you are only painting, and never fielding them, then why do you even care about the rules?

So many armies sit on shelves because they are not competitive against most of the armies on the tabletop. A few diehards are still around here and there (which is why I hear they complain), but overall if a list is no good on the table, it's not going to be fielded. In my opinion I would rather have something I can field on the table and have a chance of winning than having a painted force that is shelved. If it just sits on the shelf, it can be as fluffy as it wants.

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 08/29/2007 1:49 PM
So what special rules do my Thousand Sons Possessed, World Eater Terminators, Death Guard Bikers and Noise Marine Havocs get?

Oh wait... none of these units exist any more in the Codex, so when you say that they have 'less' special rules Ozzy, what you actually meant was 'no' special rules. Thanks for clarifying.

BYE

Let's take Salamanders as an example.  You can use C:SM to approximate a Salamander's force, but outside of a couple traits and a paint scheme, there are no Salamander specific rules (like Initiative 3).

Does the Salamander's chapter no longer exist because the Armageddon codex rules are invalid? 

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By Toreador on 08/29/2007 2:01 PM
Polonius, I wouldn't call it out if I ever saw those armies fielded on the tabletop. Other than myself I haven't seen an ork army show to our shop in over half a year. I have seen one Thousand sons army in the last year, and I play against a Deathguard army when he chooses to field it (well, because he hosts Deathguard.org, he has to play sometimes, but it is rare). If I actually saw those armies in the community I would change my attitude, but if you are only painting, and never fielding them, then why do you even care about the rules?

So many armies sit on shelves because they are not competitive against most of the armies on the tabletop. A few diehards are still around here and there (which is why I hear they complain), but overall if a list is no good on the table, it's not going to be fielded. In my opinion I would rather have something I can field on the table and have a chance of winning than having a painted force that is shelved. If it just sits on the shelf, it can be as fluffy as it wants.

We can debate endlessly about the actual popularity of the lists, and there's always the old joke about how there are more squat players since they were canceled than before.  What I find a little disturbing is your line of reasoning:
1) You like to play competitive lists, and don't pay any attention to weaker lists.
2) you don't see those lists at your shop.
3) therefore those armies don't exist much in the overall community
4) therefore it's ok to cancel those armies, because you and the guys at the shop don't mind.

It's a reduction of your line of reasoning, but it's frightening to me, because it shows that you're not trying to gain context or facts, but are rather content to allow a few observations and personal feelings determine your position.  And while you're entitled to your opinion, you've been acting more as an advocate for the new codex design than as a person with a personal opinion.

Of course there's a few things to consider:
1) Forum posters, especially long time posters, tend to be veteran hobbyists
2) Sub lists are most appealing to vets (how many noobs with LatD do you see?)
3) there's a bit of a self selecting sample on how many people/armies are affected.

While that props, to an extent, your point that popularity for those lists was less than we think, it ignores the disproportionate role vets play in the hobby.  In both shops and the internet, vets are key to getting new popel interested, having loaner armies, trying new things, etc.

Finally, I've always had a regular Ork player in my various gaming groups, I played Death Guard at a tournament two weeks ago, and another regular fields Dark Eldar.  Every shop is different.

And here is all that I and my complaint generator have to say about the Chaos Codex...

A few weeks ago, I wrote, "The Chaos Codex desperately wants to be fashionable". In this message, I'd like to follow up on that statement. So, without further ado, I present you with this all-important piece of information: I cringe at the thought of how the Chaos Codex might some day engulf the world in a dense miasma of propagandism. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that the Chaos Codex has any control over. But that's inconsequential, because one of the great mysteries of modern life is, How can the Chaos Codex be so impractical? People often ask me that question. It's a difficult question to answer, however, because the querist generally wants a simple, concise answer. He doesn't want to hear a long, drawn-out explanation about how it's easy for the Chaos Codex to declaim my proposals. But when is it going to provide an alternative proposal of its own? In classic sophist fashion, I ask another question in reply: Why aren't our children being warned about it in school? Before you answer, let me point out that I am troubled by its constant exaggerations and half-truths. It follows from this that the Chaos Codex always demands instant gratification. That's all that is of concern to it; nothing else matters -- except maybe to exhibit a deep disdain for all people who are not snotty voluble-types. I tell you this because we must question the Chaos Codex's authority. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own horny, grotesque nostrums. The Chaos Codex's reinterpretations of historic events are designed to create a climate of intimidation. And they're working; they're having the desired effect. The Chaos Codex once tried convincing me that it has answers to everything. Does it think I was born yesterday? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that I plan to examine the social and cultural conditions that trade facts for fantasy, truth for myths, academics for collective socialization, and individual thinking for group manipulation. This is a choice I have made; your choice is up to you. But let me remind you that many people are incredulous when I tell them that the Chaos Codex intends to transform our little community into a global crucible of terror and gore. "How could the Chaos Codex be so wrongheaded?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is definitely possible, and now I'll explain exactly how the Chaos Codex plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that its suggestions promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for the Chaos Codex's votaries because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to the Chaos Codex. I have reason to believe that the Chaos Codex is about to expose and neutralize its enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate. I pray that I'm wrong, of course, because the outcome could be devastating. Nevertheless, the indications are there that the Chaos Codex will probably respond to this letter just like it responds to all criticism. It will put me down as "addlepated" or "mudslinging". That's its standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about it except the most fawning praise.

Polonius, your line of reasoning would be fine except....

I do play DA, Orks, and SOB, which are not the most competitive lists. After 20 years of this game I play more for fun than competition, but I know where competition stands in a game with a winner and a loser. I have watched armies go up on ebay for such reasons.

Dark Eldar are rather competitive by the way, just not liked.

What I want is more diversity in forces played. The problem with this is that people tend to play what they perceive they have a chance with. If they perceive that they have no hope, most will quickly sell off their army and move onto something they can be more competitive with. Vets tend to be the people that play those lists that no one else plays, we like the challenge. We are also the ones that tell the new players what they should or should not buy. We usually recommend armies that do well. I have yet to see anyone recommend that someone starts a TS army.

The fact is I travel about quite a bit. I like to stop in the local shops where I am at. I watch, look and listen. I see a lot of the same thing wherever I go. I am not saying I don't see those things ever, but they are rare. I have seen Kroot merc lists at tournaments within the last 6 months, but what you have is a lot of people gravitating to what works, especially newer people to the game. So there is a tendency to see those things over and over across the country (I can't comment on Europe). So defending lists that don't contribute to this, is silly to me.

I also like sublists, and love the Thousand Sons background. There is just no reason to field them. It's just asking for torture. A playable list would be nice, and they have met you half way. Only time will tell if they come full circle.

What I want is a core that is more solid. You can work out from there.

They're just ugly. I'd play them, but for the models.



Who is this nebulous "they" of which you speak? I have never sold an army on ebay. The armies I've just lost, courtesy of the new codex, are: 1) my LatD (a fun army, but less competitive, as I played them, than stock Guard); 2) my Lustwing (much less competitive than most of what came to be called "daemon bomb" armies); and 3) an admittedly-nasty Siren-based gladiator tournament army. I don't lament the last one, btw.



The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." You wander into a foreign game store on a given night, and don't see a particular army. Could it be there, and you missed it? Could it be that one (or more) of the players present have multiple armies, and just didn't bring that one that night? What seems "silly" to me is to espouse a position on behalf of the ever-nebulous "they", based solely on a single individual's perspective.

Even sillier, is to hold to this position, in the face of obviious examples of members of the "they" that disagree with the position.



Simplified: I am a data point. I am BOTH a tournament gamer AND a fun gamer. I am not an especially strong modeller or painter. I have lost both fun armies and competitive armies to this change. I do not sell my armies on ebay, regardless of their current utility.

How do I fit your world view?



Nothing they did to the chaos codex achieves this end. A strong subset of units remain optimal, while others are (near-) useless.

Ok, I think I see your point, as shifting as it might be. You want to see more diversity in the armies played, even if it comes at the expense of diversity of armies possible. You contend that gamers will gravitate towards the lists that are competitive and that boutique lists that aren't strong simply aren't played in numbers enough to justify the complicated or arcane rules that enable them.

What you also do is say my point is good, except... and then you never say why my points aren't correct. In fact, you seem to agree with every I wrote, except you think that GW should focus more on the core of the army list and not do army lists. What you are saying, in effect, is that you want diversity of armies, you want a solid, balanced core, but for some reason you simply dislike the legion rules, or are simply commited to advocating the current codex at the expense of all other lines of argument.

GW has never written a perfectly balanced codex. Some are close, but saying you'd rather GW focus on the core rather than try to balance sub-lists doesn't hold up. Aside from IW, none of the legion lists were broken because of the legion rules. As I said, if you simply dislike the old legion rules, or if you simply want to oppose the majority of though in the hopes of fighting group-think, I wish you would say so.

Otherwise, I see no reason to argue that it would have been worse for the hobby if GW had included some sort of legion rules.

Posted By Janthkin on 08/29/2007 3:27 PM

Simplified: I am a data point. I am BOTH a tournament gamer AND a fun gamer. I am not an especially strong modeller or painter. I have lost both fun armies and competitive armies to this change. I do not sell my armies on ebay, regardless of their current utility.

How do I fit your world view?

you don't. therefore.. according to the laws of the internet, you can be summarily ignored. :thumbs up:

 

/ this concludes tonights demonstration in "debate via tubes".

Polonius, I have never really disagreed with you, I was just answering points. What I am saying is something hypothetical. I am not going to get into whether or not the new codex is balanced or not, as I have yet to truly see it take the field. We do all see problems already, but whether they play out that way is yet to be seen.

What I am saying is I don't lament the loss of unplayable lists in the past, such as Thousand sons. They are still playable as "TS" if you take liberties in the new list, and from what I see they are much better as that incarnation. I find it funny to defend a past list with either unplayable (yes, in my opinion) or overpowered armies.

But, being an optimist, I hope or foresee a Thousand Sons list in the future of some sort, along with the other cults. I would hope they would eventually cover more. Doing it all in one book could just be too much info. They have laid the groundwork for something better, but...... I don't see the same balance I saw with the Eldar dex though (barring holofield rules) , so those hopes may be dashed. We might just end up with the same mess we started with.

This is what I hope. They need to focus on a core. Balance that out. I don't care so much if we lose sub-lists for the meantime, we as gamers can always cope by using "as is" or playing with our own rules amongst friends. Then go back and add sublists. Define the core, then expand out.

I don't think I have ever seen anything perfectly balanced, even in such simple things as DBM/DBA. What I hope for is a modicum of competitiveness. That an army list CAN be competitive against the other lists. Right now there are a lot of lists that just aren't, and those fall by the wayside.

Janthkin, you are the norm, for the vet types. I think a lot of people are more like that around here than not. But yes, I have seen people swap out armies because they just can't compete against what is in their area.

It is hard to ever get a true sampling of everyone.

Posted By Polonius on 08/29/2007 11:18 AM

The new codex is great for a lot of reasons:
1) It encourages DIY warbands, and removes constraints on army comp.
2) The individual cults are better defined, balanced, and focused.
3) The most abusive aspects of the old list are all removed.
4) The codex is another in a move towards a trimming of cheap, static long range shooting.
5) Rhinos are usuable again!
6) Terminators have uses outside of simply holding ACs

the new Codex is awful for a lot of reasons:
1) Unlike the eldar codex, which threw a bone to each former sublist in the new book, this codex removes not just the sublists, but prevents any alteration of the FOC and does not include non-infantry troops. Eldar got jetbike troops, better avengers, pathfinders as troops, a kicking Eldrad, and even the option for wraithguard troops. Chaos got... nothing.
2) Entire army builds are invalidated. Daemonbomb, Chaos-wings, Uber-psykers, alpha legion.
3) Everybody with Daemons, or more than on Greater Daemon, got hosed.
4) Certain units lost a lot of flavourful rules and combat rules: Raptors, Chosen, all daemonic gifts, etc.
5) Some units changed role dramatically: dreads and defilers, raptors. people who bought an indirect fire unit now have a fast moving CC dreadnought.
6) Lash!

Does it bother anyone else that the 'advantages' are a joke compared to the disadvantages. 

Or the fact that Polonius had to come up with 3 filler answers in order to make the 'advantages' even with the disadvantages.
(I'm not attacking him there, its just bad when someone who has to sum up the advantages of the new codex, and can't come up with more than 3)

Or that the only people defending the codex have a proven track record of defending GW regardless of how badly they manage to screw up.

Edit:  I love how people are trying to argue that they removed the broken stuff from the chaos codex, yet choose to conveniently ignore the fzorgle.